Filling The DPW Vacancy-Sanghvi and Moran have a plan but is it legal?
At the Saratoga Springs City Council meeting on September 3, 2024, Finance Commissioners Minita Sanghvi and Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran both tried to pass resolutions setting a date for a special election to fill the Commissioner of Public Works vacancy created when Jason Golub vacated the position. Notwithstanding their claims that their resolutions were based on alleged research and that they were following the city charter, both Sanghvi's resolution and the modified one presented later by Moran were seriously flawed. Both resolutions failed. The issue was raised again at the September 17 meeting. More on that in the next post. For now-here is Round 1.
Sanghvi's Resolution
Here is the resolution Commissioner Sanghvi put on her agenda for the September 3 City Council meeting:
A casual reading reveals the first problem with Commissioner Sanghvi's resolution. It requests a special election, but there is no indication of who this request is being directed to. It's kind of like "to whom it may concern." As it turns out, there was confusion between Sanghvi and Moran as who this resolution was supposed to go to.
During the two discussions (more on that later), Moran and Sanghvi offered several explanations as to whom their request for an election would be directed. At one point, it was to the Saratoga County Board of Elections (Sanghvi), and at another, it was to the Governor (Moran), sometimes it was the Attorney General, sometimes it was the New York State Board of Elections.
Sanghvi's resolution also set the date for the special election to coincide with the upcoming November 5 general election. She argued that doing so would save money and that, as it was a national election, it would draw the most voters.
While her arguments were valid, she seemed to have conveniently forgotten or chose just to ignore that the November 5 option had been off the table for some time. Jason Golub would have had to leave office by August 5 to allow for the 90-day window required to schedule a special election on November 5. I am told the city Democrats put considerable pressure on Golub to leave office by that date but were unsuccessful. Sanghvi had to be aware of all this.
Mayor John Safford and Public Safety Commissioner Tim Coll explained that to adopt a resolution like this that sets a specific date for a special election, the city attorneys would first need to properly research the law and provide the Council with a clarifying memorandum to ensure that they would be requesting an election that was indeed legally allowable.
Sanghvi claimed that David Harper, the City Attorney, had approved her resolution and that sending this resolution to the Saratoga County Board of Elections would somehow initiate the election. Sanghvi asserted that it was the only way to determine what procedure should be followed. Why someone couldn't just pick up the phone and ask this question without passing a resolution requesting an election be held on a particular date was never explained by Sanghvi.
Harper was called to the microphone and told the Council members that he had simply approved the resolution's format, not its content. He told the Council he had no expertise in election law to determine whether the resolution was consistent with city and state law. He observed that further research should be initiated.
A Pointless And Acrimonious Deliberation
It was crystal clear that neither Coll nor Safford would support a resolution adopting a date for a special election without further clarification as to the legality of the request. This did not restrain Moran and Sanghvi from offering contradictory arguments or scurrilously and falsely implying and, at times, stating outright that Coll and Safford opposed holding any election to fill the vacancy.
Commissioner Coll responded to Sanghvi by noting that he had contacted the Saratoga County Board of Elections and was told that any date selected for a special election would, at a minimum, have to allow at least a ninety-day window so that members of the armed forces could receive ballots and return them. Coll noted that an election on November 5 would not allow for this, and so while he supported having an election, this date was a non-starter for him, and he could not vote for her resolution.
Sanghvi had repeatedly justified her resolution by stating that the city charter required a special election be held to fill a vacancy when it occurs on the Council.
While section 2.4 of the charter does call for a special election to fill a vacancy under certain circumstances, Coll noted to Sanghvi that her citations from the city charter did not include Section 12.2, which requires the city to adhere to state election law. Coll argued that while he supported having a special election, it was precipitous to schedule one before the city's attorneys could properly research state election law and advise the Council on what the legal options were.
What Does the City Charter Say About Special Elections?
The charter has conflicting sections on elections. At one point, it authorizes the Council to set a date and to run special elections to fill vacancies. In another section, it says that state election law establishes the terms the city must adhere to.
City Attorney Izzo explained to the Council that the conflict arose due to the city's history. In 1915, the city held its own elections, including the design of ballots and the timing of all elections.
Subsequently, the New York State legislature established the terms and conditions of elections. Commissioner Sanghvi chose to focus on the language from the old charter and ignored the revision related to state election law.
City attorney Tony Izzo had informed the council that state law supersedes the section of the law continually referenced by Sanghvi and Moran, but the two simply ignored his admonishment.
This is the key section from the charter she did not cite. It reads:
12.2Primaries and municipal elections.
Provisions of the Election Law of the State of New York shall apply to all municipal elections and special elections of the City of Saratoga Springs and shall guide in all matters not provided in the Charter.
A primary election shall be held in accordance with Election Law of the State of New York in each odd-numbered year during the hours 12:00 noon until 9:00 p.m.
City Charter
The general municipal election shall be held on Tuesday succeeding the first Monday in each odd-numbered year, in accordance with Election Law of the State of New York.
Commissioner Coll Promotes Having The City Attorneys Research The Laws Before Any Action
Sanghvi And Moran Ignore Coll And Insist On A Vote (It Fails)
Sanghvi and Moran insisted that the Council adopt her resolution. As the discussion devolves, it becomes clear that the resolution has been crafted without the required research.
Sanghvi Agrees To Have The City Attorneys Research The Law And Advise The Council
Moran Insists His Colleagues Pass A Revised Resolution
Moran has somehow appropriated the authority to present the Department of Public Works agenda to the Council in the absence of a DPW Commissioner.
Despite Sanghvi's resolution's failure, he tweaked it, changed the date from November 5 to December 31 (New Year's Eve), and moved to add this new version to the DPW agenda.
This was an outrageous abuse of the dubious role he had adopted in presenting the DPW business, and I am sorry the mayor did not rule him out of order.
Moran attacked Coll and Safford and insisted on a vote. Despite Sanghvi's earlier agreement to accept having the City Attorneys research the issue, she seconded Moran's motion.
His resolution was also defeated, and Sanghvi reverted back to supporting the City Attorneys' research on the issue.
Moran Never Gives Up
It is worth noting that the agenda for the next Council meeting on September 16 included the exact same resolution by Moran for setting a date for a special election by December 31 twice. It appeared as part of his Accounts Department agenda and part of the DPW agenda. The next blog will explore what happened with his resolution.
Good Government Process
This dispute is the most recent unpleasant occurrence at the Council table arising from Dillon Moran's repeated introduction of resolutions he knows will not pass.
There is a history of how governments effectively function.
An elected official who wants to pass legislation first engages his/her colleagues in private discussions, seeking their support. This is not backroom dealing, as the body must adopt legislation in a public process. If the official cannot gather a majority to support a resolution, the general course of events is that they accept that it cannot be passed and desist from pursuing it.
There are four good reasons for this.
- If a member has questions or reservations, the proponent can respond directly to the concerns or agree to find answers to the questions raised.
- If the legislation is doomed, it avoids unnecessary conflict at the table.
- If it is doomed, it avoids wasting the time of his/her colleagues by not unnecessarily prolonging their meeting.
- It has the courtesy of not prompting citizens who may oppose or support the legislation from wasting their time attending the meeting and voicing their concerns.
Of course, there are legitimate exceptions. A legislator may believe raising a doomed resolution will help inform the public. This should, however, be the exception. To chronically submit doomed legislation will, as we have observed over the last two and a half years, contribute to a toxic atmosphere that places performance over substance.
In Moran's case, the purpose of many of his resolutions is not that they are passed but that they serve as foils for conflict and drama at the Council table.
No comments:
Post a Comment