PROPOSED CHARTER HEADS TO VOTERS
Referendum Tuesday could change form of city gov’t
Voters will decide Tuesday if the city gets a new form of government.
The charter referendum will be on the back of the ballot Tuesday.
The current charter, under the commission form of government, has an elected mayor and four elected commissioners who serve as members of the city council and supervisors of specific departments.
The proposed charter calls for a council-manager form of government, and would go into effect January 2020.
If the proposed charter passes Tuesday, the city would hire a full-time manager to run the day-to-day operations of City Hall while city council members would serve solely in a legislative role.
The proposed charter been a much-debated topic within the community. There’s been discussion at countless City Council meetings, forums and debates about what form of government works best for Saratoga Springs.
The 15-member Charter Review Commission began its work in June 2016 with an opportunity to tweak the current charter, propose a new one or leave the current charter as is.
“It’s an independent body. It has its own very specific powers and duties under the Municipal Home Rule Law,” said Robert Batson an expert in city charters who helped the commission draft the proposed charter. “The whole job is to review the city charter and prepare either amendments or a new charter and to basically make sure that before it’s voted on the people in the city are educated about it.”
In February, the Charter Review Commission requested a special election in May for the charter referendum, citing the charter debate could be lost among the races in November.
Three commissioners, Michele Madigan, Anthony “Skip” Scirocco and John Franck, voted against the commission’s request.
“At that time [of the special election] I told them very clearly I’m staying out of this, but when you do your financial projections it needs to be accurate and you can’t make these claims you’ll be saving half a million dollars day one,” said Franck.
The Charter Review Commission released their financial disclosure report in early September. Later they updated their report, saying the city could expect over $400,000 per year in savings. The three commissioners disagreed with the figures as Franck presented a different analysis during one City Council meeting.
“It sounds like it’s his opinion. It’s really the commission’s duty that’s their job to get out to the
people their own analysis,” said Batson who has worked on about a dozen charters. “It just sounds like there is a disagreement over the numbers. People disagree on numbers. I don’t see how presenting the numbers, which the commission believes to be realistic. That doesn’t really constitute advocacy. Advocacy is saying, ‘We need you to vote yes on the charter proposition.’ That’s advocacy.”
Over the past couple months during City Council meetings, on Facebook posts, debates and through editorials, some commissioners and commission members have exchanged contentious remarks to one another.
“I believe we have a right as elected officials who are looking out for the taxpayers money to point out these contradictions and inadequacies in the fiscal analysis. From there I think there’s a legality to it, it’s gotten personal, phone messages left for commissioners at meetings and we seem to be responsible for anything that may go wrong in this city even though the city’s successful in spite of us,” said Madigan. “I understand why we’ve gotten involved. I understand why it would’ve been nice to have them act independently. I think they took a very political role themselves. They became very political when they started to deride and ridicule the current elected officials as well as the form of government over and over and over again to try to make their case for a new form of government instead of telling us what the long-term benefits [of the council-manager form of government are.]”
Bob Turner, chair of the commissioner, didn’t appreciate some of the things commissioners said about the charter commission during City Council meetings.
“It’s never nice when the city council refers to the 15 citizens on the Charter Review Commission as ‘vile,’ said Turner. “I was most surprised by the personal attacks by John Franck on Jeff Altimari.”
Altimari helped largely with the fiscal analysis that Franck strongly disagreed with.
“Relating to the form of government, where it’s better or worse, I never got involved in that argument because it’s really not for me to get involved,” said Franck. “It really comes down to the nastiness and also the misrepresentation of the facts, especially relating to money that’s going to be saved, because this isn’t going to save money. This is going to cost money for fiveto-10 years.”
Turner took exception to certain things Franck said about Altimari during an Oct. 17 City Council meeting and during last week’s financial debate at the Saratoga Springs public library.
“Reasonable people can disagree about the numbers, but Jeff Altimari is a CPA who was the Vice President of Finance for a $2 billion Fortune 500 Company and served as an internal auditor for the United States Department of the Treasury,” said Turner. “He is very generous and involved with in a number of community groups in Saratoga Springs.”
Franck not only had a problem with the charter’s fiscal analysis, but he believes the commission broke a law when two members privately paid for the mailing in early October.
Franck sent a letter to the New York State Board of Elections at the end of October.
Turner said he believes the reason Franck sent the letters to the Board of Elections was to intimidate commission members.
“The members of the Charter Review Commission are volunteers who have devoted countless unpaid evenings on behalf of their fellow citizens away from their families. During the day, they work as financial advisers, lawyers, developers, and consultants. If someone Googles their name and sees “mail fraud”, their reputation and livelihood is shot,” said Turner. “Franck knows this all too well when his business suffered from the baseless allegations from the nefarious local blogger.”
Batson said he doesn’t think he’s seen a charter debate as contentious as this one seems.
“They’re really supposed to go about, doing their business. [Municipal Home Rule Law 36] says they’re supposed to review the charter and prepare their amendments or a new charter,” said Batson. “That’s really what they’re supposed to do. It’s not for the City Council to be riding them. They’re supposed to be independent. They don’t report to the City Council. They report to the people in the city.”