Saratoga Springs Politics

Earlier this year, I did a post on the Ethics Board’s apparent violations of the open meetings law.  The law requires that the public be notified at least 72 hours prior to meetings.  It also requires that if a public body has a website the notice be placed on the website.

In July I emailed the Mayor concerning this with copies to the members of the Council, the chair of the Ethics Board, and the two city attorneys [see below].  In the email I provided the citation of the law and I documented that from the beginning of the year all the agendas of the Ethics Board (standard practices of all the city boards is to post their agendas as their meeting notices) were posted on the same day or after the meetings.  I did this by FOILing the city for the dates the agendas were posted on the city website and comparing these with the dates when the meetings actually occurred as documented in the Ethics Board’s posted agendas.

Having had no response from the Mayor to this email for four months I decided to attend a City Council meeting and request a response on what appears to have been an ongoing violation of the law.

Following my remarks to the Council Commissioner Madigan asked that the city assistant attorney  respond.  Tony Izzo then addressed the Council.

His response was noteworthy.  First, he responded to the Council as though my inquiry were only about a single meeting.   In fact, as the email and documents make very clear, I was concerned about six months of violations.  He then conceded that the particular meeting he was referring to had not been posted on the city website but still asserted that it had been properly posted (he never explained how) by one of the members of the Ethics Board.  He offered that some sort of transition in city staffing was the reason for it not being posted on the city’s website for this particular meeting.

He then told the Council that as far as he was concerned, no violation of law had occurred.  He also told the Council that this particular meeting notice was the only one that was not properly posted on the city’s website.

As readers of this blog will know, I like Tony Izzo very much.  He is courteous and gentlemanly in all his dealings with everyone.  Tony is a survivor.  He has been the assistant attorney through multiple administrations over a period of what I believe to have been decades.  Given the contrasting personalities and egos of our past mayors, it is rather amazing.

I am sympathetic to Tony’s desire to protect the city administration as he serves as their counsel.  Regrettably his statements went beyond a reasonable defense of the Ethics Board.  As regards the law, it seems quite clear.  I include it below in my email to him.  I am not an attorney but I consulted with an attorney who served as counsel to a major state agency who confirmed my reading. 

What is beyond dispute is that the Ethics Board failed to properly notice their meetings from January to July of this year.  I expect it goes back much farther but I restricted my FOIL to just this year.  Given this fact, I am not convinced that notwithstanding Tony’s assurances, they are complying with the law even now.

I do not know whether Tony was uninformed when he addressed the Council. 

Over a week ago I wrote to Tony on this issue asking him to respond [see below].   To date (eight days later) I have not had a response to the email below.

Here is the email to Mr. Izzo:

From: John Kaufmann ]
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 10:59 PM
To: ‘Tony Izzo’
Cc: ‘Joanne Yepsen’; ‘Christian Mathiesen’; ‘Skip Sciroco’; John Franck, johnfranck@your-cpas.com); ‘Michele Madigan’; ‘Vincent DeLeonardis’; ‘Justin Hogan’

Subject: Misrepresentation Regarding Open Meeting Law and Ethics
Committee

Attachments: Kaufmann John – FOIL Responses

I was troubled by your statements to the Council on Tuesday night.  The Council and the people of this city depend upon the attorneys who serve the Council to be accurate both as to the facts and the law.

In reviewing the video of Tuesday night’s meeting it appears that you made two statements that are incorrect regarding the Ethics Board’s adherence to the open meetings law.

In the video regarding the contention that notices for the Ethics Board meetings were not appropriately posted on the city website you told the council “I do not conclude [sic] I am not ready to conclude that there was a legal deficiency.”

You also said “The law indicates it should always be done as soon as possible.  It was posted in some manner [my emphasis].”  Article 7, section 104 of the Public Officers Law, however, is not ambiguous.  It states:

5. When a public body has the ability to do so, notice of the time and place of a meeting given in accordance with subdivision one or two of this section, shall also be conspicuously posted on the public body’s internet website.

The statute does not use the work “should,” it uses the word “shall.”  The difference between “shall” and “should” is the difference between mandatory and merely precatory.  Unless you know of but neglected to mention some other provision that contradicts this statutory directive then your statement to the Council appears to be a misrepresentation of the law.

You also told the members of the Council that the Ethics Board would “put the notice on the website as well as we always have in the past.”  You also stated “The meetings prior to that [the one notice you concede was not posted on the web] were all noticed on the web.”

I am assuming that when you said this you were speaking in good faith that notices of Ethics Board meetings were posted at least seventy-two hours prior to the respective meetings as required by law.

I FOILed the city as to the dates that the agendas were posted on the city website for the meetings so far this year.  I am attaching the response to the FOIL.  I am also attaching the agendas that were posted.  You will note that the dates that the agendas were posted were either on or after the day the meeting took place.

I am at a loss as to the basis for your statement to the Council that the previous meetings had been properly noticed.  If the FOILed records are true, it does not appear possible to characterize these previous postings as proper “notices” within the intended meaning of governing law.

As noted earlier, the citizens of Saratoga Springs and their elected representatives rely on their attorneys to be fastidious in stating the facts and in presenting the law.  If I have missed something, I would be happy to be disabused of my confusion.

Would you please acknowledge receipt of this email and indicate whether or
not you will respond to it.

---

The Bloggers Presentation To The City Council

Tony Izzo’s Presentation

---

---

Documentation From FOILs of Violation Of Open Meetings Notices:

These are the agendas.  Note the dates of the meetings

These are the dates when the agendas were posted [the same dates as the meetings or later than the dates the meetings took place

---

Original Email That Tony Izzo Was Copied On

From: John Kaufmann [john.kaufmann21@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2016 12:55 PM
To: ‘Joanne Yepsen’
Cc: ‘Christian Mathiesen’; ‘Michele Madigan’; ‘Skip Sciroco’; ‘John Franck’;
‘Tony Izzo’; ‘Vincent DeLeonardis’; ‘Justin Hogan’
Subject: Potential Violation Of Open Meetings Law

I am writing you regarding an apparent violation of the Open Meetings Law by
the Ethics Board.  As confirmed by Justin Hogan, its chair, his Board met on
June 20, 2016.  Even as of today, July 9th, there is no record of this meeting on
the City web site, let alone a record of notice to the public that such a meeting
would be convened.
I contacted Mr. Hogan regarding this apparent failure and he responded by
stating that the notice was allegedly “posted” on June 14.  In part because he
did not share with me where or how this posting took place, I did visit City
Hall today.  There are a number of bulletin boards on the first floor of the
building, and I did find a bulletin board in the City Planning Office with the
title “Meeting Agendas” affixed to it.  While it is possible that timely notice of
the meeting was posted on that space, now, some weeks following the Board’s
meeting, there is no such notice on the bulletin board regarding the June 20
meeting.  As far as I can tell, there is no record that the June 20 meeting was
ever properly posted so as to give meaningful notice to the public of that
event.  Accordingly, would you please inform me by email as to by whom the
notice was posted, and its location(s)?

The following are the requirements for notices to the public of meetings under
Article 7, section 104 of the Public Officers Law.  (I have underscored the most
pertinent section):

§104. Public notice.
1. Public notice of the time and place of a meeting scheduled at least one
week prior thereto shall be given to the news media and shall be
conspicuously posted in one or more designated public locations at least
seventy-two hours before such meeting.

2. Public notice of the time and place of every other meeting shall be
given, to the extent practicable, to the news media and shall be
conspicuously posted in one or more designated public locations at a
reasonable time prior thereto.

3. The public notice provided for by this section shall not be construed to
require publication as a legal notice.

4. If videoconferencing is used to conduct a meeting, the public notice
for the meeting shall inform the public that videoconferencing will be
used, identify the locations for the meeting, and state that the public has
the right to attend the meeting at any of the locations.

5. When a public body has the ability to do so, notice of the time
and place of a meeting given in accordance with subdivision one
or two of this section, shall also be conspicuously posted on the
public body’s internet website.

Drawing from the above, even if there was documentation to show that a
notice was posted on a bulletin board in City Hall, the statutory
requirement for notices of meetings would not have been met.  Based on
my correspondence with Mr. Hogan, it would appear that the Ethics
Board has been violating this provision for some time.  While not
venturing a legal opinion here, it is my understanding that any business
transacted at a meeting that lacks proper notice is not valid.
Timing appears rather important here because the Ethics Board is
currently dealing with a controversial inquiry.  It would be unfortunate
were the Board to publish an opinion whose authority is undermined by
something as elemental as lack of required public notice, before this
matter is resolved.
Thank you.

 

 

I am posting the comments by Sustainable Saratoga regarding the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).  It is important that people are aware of how serious an impact the final UDO document, if approved, may have on the city.  I would urge the readers of this blog to follow this process closely.  Just one example is their proposal to change the current lot size requirements to a fluid version based on the lot sizes specific to a particular area.  The manner by which lot size under this proposal  would actually be determined is never explained.  Potentially, a neighborhood with some small, non-conforming lots could end up with many more units than current zoning allows.  There are other similarly concerning recommendations.  As Sustainable has pointed out, the process by which these changes were arrived at was completely opaque.  The original document submitted by the consultants was rejected by the city’s planning department.  The planning department then oversaw the rewriting of this paper. I made a request for the original paper to compare it with the rewritten version.  I was asked to leave my telephone number but consistent with this process, I was never called. 

udo-diagnostic-comment-letter_sustainable-saratoga_2016-10-11

 

The Albany Business Review published the thirty-one largest political contributors in this region.  There were three on the list from Saratoga Springs.

At #2 is someone named Andrew E. Beckwith III who gave $50,000.00 to American Bridge 21^st Century and Priorities USA.    American Bridge  has a website that describes itself as a “progressive” organization dedicated to holding Republicans “accountable for their words and actions.”  Priorities USA states on its “about” page that it is dedicated to electing Hillary Clinton.    A Google search didn’t produce anything regarding who Mr. Beckwith is.  Maybe one of the readers out there knows who he is.

At #6 is Joseph Kakaty who contributed $10,800 to Ted Cruz.  A Google search identified this name as the chief marketing officer with the College Loan Corporation whose headquarters are in Las Vegas.  Its website says it handles $10 billion dollars in student loans.  The name also came up in a Google search as the president of Poker Central which, as its name suggests, is dedicated to the world of professional poker players.  He is also identified as a supporter of the Saratoga Children’s Theater.

At #24 is Gary Dake who is the CEO of Stewarts Shops.  He contributed $3,700 to Gary Johnson.  Mr. Johnson is running as the Libertarian candidate.  Among Mr. Johnson’s many positions is the abolishment of Social Security.  Given the large number of part time employees that work for Mr. Dake’s company, the seven and a half percent of their salaries he must pay is probably a significant item on their expense sheet. 

At #28 is Gail Anderson who contributed $3,150.00 to Donald Trump and the Stop Hillary PAC.  Ms. Anderson, the daughter of the late Willard Anderson, is a realtor and developer and principal with the Anderson Group.  The Andersons own a huge chunk of real estate around Exit 14 .  They have been frustrated in their attempts to build a major development there.  They recently won a pyrrhic victory when they won a suit against the City of Saratoga Springs claiming that the city blocked their development claiming discrimination based on race and income.  Their project included some affordable housing.   The jury originally awarded them $1 million dollars.  The appeal reduced the award to $100,000.00.  The significant result of the decision was that it did not provide them a path to their project and they spent far more than $100,000.00 in legal fees.  Ms. Anderson’s support for Mr. Trump might add credence to the position of the project’s opponents who argued that the affordable housing was a tactic in their strategy  to build their massive development.

 

Developer Abandons Project after Criticism from Chair of City Design Review Commission

Visions Hotels of Corning, New York, has abandoned plans to tear down the Turf and Spa Motel at 176 South Broadway and build an 89 room Fairfield Inn and Suites.

[Editor’s note: The green area on the right in the photo below is mislabeled as Congress Park. It should be labeled Greenridge Cemetery.}

<photos>

Steve Rowland, the chair of the  Design Review Commission, had characterized the project as “corporate architecture” better suited for Clifton Park (I guess he managed to insult both the developer and the town of Clifton Park in one sentence :->)

At the  September 21 meeting of the DRC the principal of Visions, Arun “Andy” Patel, had complained about the resistance of the city commission to his company’s design.  “There is a price point that a developer can do a project with,” said Patel.  “Stretch a rubber band, there is only so far we can stretch.  After that it is going to break…we are at that point.”

Responding at the meeting Rowland said he disagreed with Patel.  “You are at the beginning of this process,” he told Patel, “yet… this is the first time we have seen this application [Patel’s company’s application].”

Rowland: “I am the first person to tell you, when corporate architecture comes before this board, we’ve got problems.  We don’t accept corporate architecture especially in the most significant corridor in the city.”

“Quite frankly, if that means it’s not doable and it’s not feasible from a financial standpoint, then the next project that comes to that property might be…”

“Forgive me for getting a little testy about it, but this is so early in the process that I don’t appreciate that comment that you are being run around in circles…”

 

Class Action Against Stewart’s Convenience Stores

A Federal Judge has certified that a class action suit against Stewarts can proceed.    The suit that seeks some $20 million dollars in damages alleges that Stewarts failed to pay its employees fully for their time.  This action paves the way for the plaintiffs to contact additional employees that may have been affected by Stewart’s employment practices.  Among other things, it is alleged that employees were not paid for time at meetings and were not allowed uninterrupted meal breaks and were not properly paid for overtime.  A representative of Stewarts noted that two thirds of the original complaints were not granted class status.

 

Sonny Bonacio Proposes Project For Troy

Sonny Bonacio and partner are seeking tax breaks to convert two floors of the historic Hendrick Hudson building in Troy to apartments.  He and a partner bought the 80,000 square foot building for $2.4 million dollars in February.

CEO of Saratoga Hospital Talks About Merger With Albany Medical College

Albany Med is about to assume its authority over Saratoga Hospital.  It will control the budgeting, the contracts, the hiring of senior staff, board appointments, and strategic planning.  Saratoga Hospital maintains 171 beds and has expanded greatly during the last decade.

Saratoga Hospital CEO Angelo Calbone told the Albany Business Review that the hospital will be better able to negotiate with equipment providers and insurers as part of a much larger organization.  According to the ABR, the industry is having to move from a fee for service based model to a “performance model” [whatever that means].  “The ability to track, report, and communicate with populations is beyond the capabilities of a community-based hospital.  Financial pressures could mount and there may not be any mechanism to manage your way,” said Calbone.

Given the rapidly changing world of medicine, I find Mr. Calbone’s statements considerably more credible than his earlier claims about how his hospital had negotiated an agreement that would maintain its independence.

 

For the people who get automatic emails with my posts, be advised that embedded video in my posts apparently does not work in emails.  If you want to see the video of the Charter Review Commission incident (and I hope you do), you will need to go to my site to view it.

My Site

The Charter Review Commission has scheduled a meeting for the public  to provide input to them for Tuesday, October 18, at the Tang Museum at Skidmore College at 7PM.  The meeting conflicts with the regularly scheduled City Council meeting.  The Charter meeting was changed to this night after it was discovered that the original date conflicted with the  Jewish high holiday, Yom Kippur ,.

A number of people contacted members of the Commission asking that they reschedule their event again so as to not conflict with the City Council meeting.  They were told that flyers had already been printed for the event and  the Saratogian ran a front page story on the hearing so changing it now was no longer feasible.

The issue remained, however, as to how the original decision was made.  After all, if any group should have been aware of the schedule of the City Council, it would have been this commission that has been meeting for months pouring over the minutiae of city government.  Putting all of this in perspective, having conflicting meetings while unfortunate, is far from catastrophic.  Still, in light of the fact that every other major city board and committee avoids such conflicts, it seems unnecessarily provocative to have done this.  In fact, its chair Bob Turner and Commissioner of Finance Michele Madigan have had a spirited exchange over the issue.

With that in mind, I emailed Mr. Turner asking why his committee would have scheduled this conflict in the first place [see emails below].  Mr. Turner offered to call me to discuss the matter.  I responded by saying that I would be happy to talk to him but asked that he first email me the explanation to avoid any confusion about the issue.  He emailed back that he would but it has now been some time and I have not heard from him.

I was curious about what discussion among the commission there may have been on the conflict so I watched their meeting of October 11.  City attorney Tony Izzo serves as the attorney for the commission.  Approximately an hour into the meeting a related matter came up and Mr. Izzo attempted to raise the issue of the conflict.  As the video below shows, Mr. Turner told Mr. Izzo that he was out of order.

I do not always agree with Mr. Izzo but he is no grandstander.  He has a wealth of knowledge not only of municipal law, not only of the history of our city, but in particular of the torturous histories of past charter commissions  he has served.  When Tony Izzo volunteers an opinion, it is prudent to take full advantage and listen.

To set the context for this video, Elio DelSette (appointed by Michele Madigan) was arguing the importance to include in the record a letter critical of the commission that had appeared in Saratoga Today.  Gordon Boyd (appointed by Mayor Yepsen) questioned the appropriateness of including a document that he characterized as full of inaccuracies.  It was at this point that Mr. Izzo attempted to enter the discussion by advising the group that placing all records related to the commission had been the routine policy of all previous commissions.  He then attempted to raise the issue of scheduling commission meetings that conflict with Council meetings.  You will observe that it is at this point that Mr. Turner stops him.  For those of us who have worked with Mr. Izzo, his gracious handling of this situation is pure Tony Izzo.

---

Mr. Izzo was running the recording device.  HIs voice can be heard beginning with “Its been done.  Its exactly what has been done…”  Mr. Turner who is the chair is sitting on the left by the cup with the blue top.  To his left is Gordon Boyd.

---

[These emails are from most recent to oldest]

---

From: John Kaufmann [john.kaufmann21@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2016 9:56 AM
To: ‘Robert Turner (Government)’
Subject: FW: Conflict

Expected a response and call last night.  Still hoping you respond.
Thanks

---

From: John Kaufmann [mailto:john.kaufmann21@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 6:31 PM
To: ‘Robert Turner (Government)’
Subject: RE: Conflict

Great.  Send me your response to my email then call me at 584-7395.

---

From: Robert Turner (Government) [mailto:bturner@skidmore.edu]
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 4:52 PM
To: John Kaufmann
Subject: RE: Conflict

Sure, send me your number.

Bob Turner
Associate Professor of Political Science and Environmental Studies and Sciences
Director, Environmental Studies and Sciences Program
Director, Faculty Student Summer Research Program
Skidmore College
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866

---

From: John Kaufmann [mailto:john.kaufmann21@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 12:31 PM
To: Robert Turner (Government) <bturner@skidmore.edu>
Subject: RE: Conflict

I would be happy to talk to you but I want to be fair and accurate on my blog so could you please respond in an email answering my October 13 email.

---

From: Robert Turner (Government) [mailto:bturner@skidmore.edu]
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 12:11 PM
To: John Kaufmann
Subject: RE: Conflict

Hi John,
Sorry I was in Albany this morning and am teaching and meetings all afternoon.  Are you free after 4:30
or so to talk?
Bob

Bob Turner
Associate Professor of Political Science and Environmental Studies and Sciences
Director, Environmental Studies and Sciences Program
Director, Faculty Student Summer Research Program
Skidmore College
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866

---

From: John Kaufmann [mailto:john.kaufmann21@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 8:41 PM
To: Robert Turner (Government) <bturner@skidmore.edu>
Subject: Conflict

I have gotten a number of inquiries regarding the conflict between the Charter Review Commission’s hearing next Tuesday and the city council meeting.  When you changed the date of your hearing because of Yom Kippur, did you realize that there would be a conflict with the city council meeting?  If so, could you explain why this was not a concern?

Newspapers for region in order of paid circulation. [Daily/Weekly/Monthly]

Name – Paid Circulation – Free Papers

1. Times Union [D]                                              44,189
2. The Evangelist [W]                                         34,750
3. Daily Gazette [D]                                             32,751                   801
4. Country Folks (Palatine Bridge) [W]         28,531                   39,011
5. The Post Star (Glens Falls) [D]                    23,792
6. Spotlight News (Delmar) [W]                      7,734                     16,100
7. Leader Herald (Gloversville) [D]                 6,783
8. Albany Business Review) [W]                      6,737
9. The Recorder (Amsterdam) [D]                  5,872                     1062
10. Altamont Enterprise [W]                             4,373
11. Hudson Register Star [D]                             4,044
12. Saratogian [D]                                                  3,979
13. The Record (Troy) [D]                                    3,808
14. Eagle Press (Cambridge) [W]                       3,100
15. Daily Mail (Hudon) [D]                                   2,243
16. Columbia Paper (Ghent)  [W]                       2,202                     138
17. Jewish World (Schenectady) 2X/Month    1,400                     4,500
18. Chatham Courier [W]                                     1,190
19. Windham Journal (Catskill) [W]                 1,145
20. Chronical/Lone Oak (Glens Falls) ]W]      350                         27,650
21. Adirondack Sports & Fitness [M]                00                         19,800
22. Capital Region Weekly (Albany) [W]        0                              187,000
23. Saratoga Today [W]                                        0                              10,000

[Maureen Curtin has been a tireless advocate for neighborhoods threatened by inappropriate projects. Her email here focuses on one of the potential threats to neighborhoods implicit in the “Diagnostics Report” for the Unified Development Ordinance.  An earlier post I wrote goes into other very disturbing elements of the recent document.]

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Maureen Curtin <> wrote:

To: Behan Planning: John Behan, Michael Allen City Planning Department: Bradley Birge, Tina Carton, Kate Maynard, Susan Barden

cc: Mayor Yepsen, Commissioner Franck, Commissioner Madigan, Commissioner Mathiesen, Commissioner Scirocco

Concerned City Homeowners

Re:  September 6, 2016 UDO Diagnostic Report

Over the past three years, Residential Homeowners throughout the city have fought to maintain their Residential Neighborhoods by maintaining current allowable densities and limiting uses in their neighborhoods to those now permitted.

These densities and uses are clearly defined on Table 2: Use Schedule, and Table 3: Area and Bulk Schedule, in our current Zoning Ordinance.

The Comprehensive Plan Committee Members voted and approved in our 2015 City Comprehensive Plan not to increase densities in our future Zoning Ordinance (aka the UDO), except in a few limited specifically defined areas. This was the “vision” and the intent, and this vote and promise needs to be upheld in our new Zoning Ordinance.

The 2015 Comprehensive Plan Executive Summary reads:

“This new Plan mirrors the 2001 Plan in the following ways…

3) the location of future land uses and their intensities are almost identical.”

However, in the September 6, 2016 UDO Zoning Diagnostic Report, page 37, you are recommending a significant change for determining lot size and width. Your recommendation is to “Review all of the current lot sizes and coverage percentages to ensure compatibility with existing lot sizes and neighborhood character.”

Residential Homeowners strongly oppose this.

Departing from set lot sizes and lot widths could lead to substantial density increases and subdivisions of current lots throughout the city.

Many older neighborhoods had houses built on small lots in the 1800s and 1900s before current zoning laws were written. Zoning laws written in the 1990s were done so in part to protect residential neighborhoods from being overbuilt in order that lawns, green space and sun would be part of the residential landscape.

What you are proposing now eliminates these protections in residential neighborhoods.  Any builder or property owner could use smaller lots in their neighborhood to demand the right to build on lots 25 to 50% smaller than lot sizes currently required in our Zoning Ordinance, significantly increasing densities.

Suggesting Neighborhood Character would offset any misuse of your recommended method is inadequate, as who is to determine what fits into a neighborhood, as often there’s a mishmash of housing styles throughout neighborhoods. This would be highly subjective and the hope and dream of any builder with a Land Use attorney.

Please do not make us fight this long fought and won battle again.

We want Table 2 and Table 3 of the current Zoning Ordinance maintained in the new Zoning Ordinance (UDO). These Tables correspond to what was voted on and contained in the 2015 Comprehensive Plan.

Sincerely, Maureen Curtin

On Behalf of Residential Homeowners Throughout the City

[Art Gonick emailed me his thoughts on addressing the city’s ethics problems]

Toward A More Ethical Future

Guest Column

By Arthur Gonick

SARATOGA SPRINGS – On April 15, 2016 a story of mine was published (See http://saratogatodaynewspaper.com/item/5246-recusal-or-refusal.html) which set in motion a series of events that led to Mayor Joanne Yepsen being formally censured by the Saratoga Springs City Council at its July 19 meeting.

Subsequently, the Mayor submitted a legal bill for her defense before the ethics panel, approximately $12,000, which Commissioner of Finance Michele Madigan has confirmed has been paid.

So, do we say that this is wrapped up in a bow and put the whole thing in some dusty file cabinet? As a citizen of this City, a voter and active resident, I say no.

There are systemic problems, as a whole that must be addressed. For the conditions that could lead to further ethics violations – by any elected office-holder in Saratoga Springs – are still here. Simply put: The temptation to reach for the convenient, low-hanging fruit still exists in our own Garden of Eden (zip code 12866), and I believe that citizens must tend to this garden.

Some believe the answer lies in ‘charter change,’ but I believe this has a record as a non-starter. If the current committee examining this wants to go with some global revolution, I wish them good luck – but I will bet on them to lose, again.

Why not do something in a more digestible portion? One that is reasonable, measured and doable – and put us on a road to a more ethical future? I propose a three-point program to begin the discussion. It may not be the only solution, but it can be accomplished faster than charter change. Note that the first item could be done alone and it might improve the ethical climate. Items 2 and 3 need to be done at the same time; doing all 3 will be best:

1) Ethics Board – Standards of Performance: In researching the April 15 article, I reviewed the Ethics Board’s bylaws, and attended the public portion of the Board’s April 12 meeting. I was amazed that Commissioner of Public Works Anthony Scirocco actually had to insist on an answer as to whether his inquiry was even received! Further, in the bylaws of the Ethics Board, there appear to be no standards of performance, along the lines that they will act in 60-90 days on complaints, etc. Now to be fair, they sometimes need to deal with issues that may take longer, or bump out something because of a dangerous workplace situation, but these would be exceptions rather than the norm.

This situation can be immediately improved with a simple Council resolution to amend the Ethics Board’s by-laws. A public hearing could perhaps help determine if 60 days vs. 90 is a better standard, but as of now there is none. Fix this, and you have immediately improved things.

2) Raise the Salary of the Mayor and Commissioners – Lets not mince words:

Lettuce workers laugh at what our ‘leaders’ make.

I mean, really? In this town, $14,500! And we expect full-time work out of these people, expect them to absorb all kinds of snark (and worse) and keep our City in the preeminent position it enjoys. That’s fine if you are independently wealthy, but is that the pool of candidates we want to choose from? I ask every candidate for Commissioner or Mayor that I meet, regardless of party, one simple question: “Are you out of your mind?” – and the compensation is why. They must think they are poor journalists or something.

Perhaps this will be part of ‘charter change’ but I believe the time to wait for this is over. Do what needs to be done to find the cash, and don’t take it from the Deputy’s either – they do the work and that’s not going to change. For a discussion starter, let’s say $50,000/year is fair. You can piddle on the amount, but I want it high enough to no longer tempt our leaders to seek outside income locally, which leads to conflicts inevitably. And I want the pool of candidates open to anyone. Even at $50K/year, I’ll still ask if they are nuts, given the amount of crap our leaders take, but at least I won’t have to attend a fundraiser to know that they are not starving.

But that is not good enough. This salary raise comes with a price, which is…

3) “Nothing New” in 12866 – On Inauguration Day, the City Council takes the oath of office. I resolve that they also sign a pledge that states firmly and emphatically that they will see no new business in our city for however long they remain in office. Remember, their salaries were raised, so this is less of an issue. The exact language can be worked out by one of our City’s famous committees, and I’d be glad to volunteer for it if they ask.

How does this play out? Well, since they are working full-time for us, every CPA, dentist, etc. is going to need to hire a junior associate, or even an intern if possible, who will handle every new client with a 12866 zip, as well as those that already are clients that may present future conflicts. See, we’ve already created some new jobs!

If that presents too big a hardship, don’t run – I completely understand. But in some cases, that choice is not necessary.

Here’s why: There’s a whole world out there!

Case in point: Had Mayor Yepsen approached Saratoga Hospital for a reference about the fundraising efforts she did on their behalf prior to taking office, I have no doubt that they would have been delighted to provide one – I am very sure she is an excellent fundraiser. And no one would call it unethical – she did the work, after all!

OK – reference(s) in hand, she puts together a package which includes her professional vitae, which happens to include the fact that she is Mayor of Saratoga Springs. No violation whatsoever, it is the truth.

And let’s say, she decides to send this package to a hospital foundation in, oh – I don’t know – Louisville, Kentucky. Hmmm… do you think that there might be at least one “horsey set” board member that might say ‘well, look what we have here!’ when they see the Mayor’s package?

There’s a lot of business out there in the world for talented individuals, and every current Council member is a professional in their respective fields. But they need to know where to look, and need to have the temptation of low-hanging fruit removed.

I believe that this obligation to put us on the path – a path toward a more ethical future – begins and ends with concerned citizens and voters.

Arthur is a professional journalist whose specialties are arts + entertainment; sports; people and lifestyles. He is also a registered, active voter in the City of Saratoga Springs, where he has lived about half his life.