|
The 1980's and 1990's in the United States was a time of agitation and vocalization for many groups who had traditionally been marginalized and on the periphery of society. These previously suppressed concerns and groups were being pushed to the forefront of political discussion and social action. These groups and issues included women's equality, gay rights, and enforcement of affirmative action and minority rights. These national concerns were felt on a local level as well and were reflected in the actions and issues before the municipal government, specifically the Albany Common Council. In this sense Albany was a typical American city. In a 1988 interview with the Albany Times Union Mayor Thomas Whalen III discussed the challenges that were facing the City were typical of just about any city in the nation: garbage disposal, development, parking, keeping the public downtown after 5:00 p.m. and the quality of schools in the area.[1] A few glaring items absent from this generic list, but present in most cities, were crime and drugs-- these too would eventually plague Albany.[2] But Albany did not fit the classification of a typical city at this time period, for it was in a unique and enviable position entering 1990. Unlike cities like Cleveland, which had declared bankruptcy and defaulted on its loans, or others that had borrowed heavily, Albany was showing a surplus on its balance sheets. [3] Through careful management, Mayor Whalen husbanded a surplus of over thirty million dollars.[4] Prior to his accession to Mayor, Thomas Whalen III served as the President of the Albany Common Council. He functioned as the acting Mayor during the last months of Mayor Erastus Corning's life. Corning's death in May 1983 signaled the end of an Albany era. The Common Council recognized his years of service with a fitting tribute and a ceremonial handing over of the gavel. The tribute read in part: ... In his role as Chairman, he harnessed the political process to the yoke of human endeavor; he refined, directed and orchestrated that process and in so doing, he made that process responsive to the people of Albany County.[5] When handing over the President's gavel to former Alderman Stephen McArdle, Whalen remarked that he did not have reason to use the gavel during his seventeen months as President, since he received so much cooperation from the Council.[6] He would have plenty of time to reflect on this utterance in his ten years as Mayor, perhaps wishing that he had been able to maintain his previous relationship. Instead, his association was at times tempestuous as he found that the members of the Common Council continually challenged his authority. The source of this challenge originated from the composition of the Council. As the years progressed into the 1990s, the Council began to reflect the diverse population of Albany, as more women and blacks were elected Aldermen. Sensitive to this mixed-gender body, as early as 1993 the annual Common Council Calendar listed the members as "Alderpersons."[7] The occupations of the members were as diverse as their gender and ethnicity. Most members were employed in middle-class occupations, as storeowners or employees of the State. This assertion is based on a few examples of the members' financial status, which were provided in financial disclosures. Alderman Robert Van Amburgh listed his primary salary as being in excess of $50,000.[8] In 1992 Alderman Gerald Jennings earned $73, 543 as Vice-principal of an Albany High School. Alderman Joseph Buechs, Jr. annual income as a traffic analyst was $33, 320.[9] In addition the salary each Alderperson received from the City was $14,967 by 1994.[10] Of particular note, is the number of Alderpersons listing themselves as such in the 1994 City Directory (a total of eight). This is in part due to the fact that five of the Alderpersons did not have an additional occupation. In 1983, Mayor Whalen was dealing with a Council that was mainly comprised of former Mayor Corning's appointees and allies. All positions were up for re-election in 1986 including that of Mayor. In November of 1985, Whalen was swept into office along with a number of incumbent Council members. See Appendix A for a list of the Aldermen and their occupations. The results of the 1990 elections reflected the growing division between the Mayor's "loyalists" and other members on the Council. A few Aldermen such as Thomas Buran complained that only Whalen's favorites received an endorsement or funding. Gerald Jennings complained the loudest, stating in reference to Whalen, "He's absolutely making it hard to beat city hall." Jennings felt that his stand against the mayor on several issues has cost him the party's endorsement in his re-election campaign. In an interview in 1989, he told a Times Union reporter that, "if you don't agree with him, he'll replace you or try to." Since Whalen denied him the backing of the party, Jennings ran as an independent.[13] Whalen extended financial support to Arthur T. Scott, who lost to Keith St. John (believed to the first openly gay Black elected in the nation);[14] William Carl who lost to Jennings, and Kate McCue who lost to Sharon Ward.[15] Nine of the Aldermen ran unopposed.[16] The election results were a good indication of how tumultuous the next four years would be. Although Democrats held fourteen of the fifteen seats, many of them had run with their own agendas in mind.[16] See Appendix B for a list of Aldermen and their occupations. In 1993, Mayor Whalen announced that he was not going to run in that year's upcoming election. Stephen McArdle stepped down from his post as the Council President. This left many vacancies to be filled. The race for Common Council President proved quite interesting due to the clear vision each candidate had of what the role entailed. This vision was an indication that the position had evolved from a mostly ceremonial one to that of a policy shaper. In this race former Alderman Nebraska Brace ran against current Alderman Joseph Lynn, Jr.. Brace saw the role as that of a public advocate, someone who could bring an independent voice to city hall. Lynn too believed that the Council President should play a more significant role, but saw the President as a liaison between the executive and legislative branches.[18] Along with the new Mayor, Gerald Jennings, came a plethora of new candidates. Keith St. John, James R. Scalzo and Michael Brown ran unopposed. Other incumbents and their opponents debated on such issues as increased police patrols and presence in neighborhoods, drugs and crime, tougher building codes, and property reassessment- all pressing concerns in the city.[19] Even though it had been ten years since Mayor Corning's death, the city was still strongly Democratic and this was reflected in the body of the Council. See Appendix C for a list of Alderpersons and their occupations. The Albany Common Council of 1983 was comprised of fifteen Aldermen, a President and a President Pro Tempore. That same year the position of a Majority Whip was added. In September Alderman Signer offered Resolution number 82.82.83R, which amended the Rules and Proceedings of the Common Council. The duties of the Majority Whip were to "...assist the President Pro Tempore in the enforcement of party discipline and in securing of the attendance of Aldermen for meetings. Whenever the President Pro Tempore shall be excused or absent, the Majority Whip shall be substituted in his place and stead, but to act for that meeting only." At that meeting Joseph Buechs, Jr. was named Majority Whip.[22] In addition to representing their wards, Aldermen were assigned to various committees that dealt with such issues as transportation, finance, zoning, and the fire department.[23] Each committee consisted of three to five members and meet independently of the Council meetings. Most of the ordinances introduced by the Common Council during these years were prosaic and quotidian. They pertained to city projects and fixing city- owned property-- all operations necessary for the orderly management of Albany. At a typical bi-monthly meeting of the Council, the members would vote on ordinances for boarding up or the demolition of an abandoned building, the purchase of sedans for the police or fire department, a bond issue for the repair of a sewer or road and zoning. This non-controversial legislation tended to pass unanimously at each meeting and often the Council dispersed after fifteen or twenty minutes.[24] Two Mondays a month the Council President, the President Pro Tempore and a few of the senior members, would confer with the mayor before the meeting to receive the ordinances and resolutions. Various departments would write up the ordinance for the item that they needed. Jay Jachnowitz, reporting for the Times Union observed that, "If all goes according to plan--and it usually does--the council will give its stamp of approval to an array of ordinances and resolutions put forth by Whalen's administration." The other members would then receive an agenda and a supplemental package of information before the meeting.[25] Under the procedures of the Council, Aldermen were assigned to sponsor the various pieces of legislation. The assignment was based on what ward the legislation pertained to or would affect the most, or whether the Alderman chaired a relevant committee.[26] By 1992 this routine had drastically changed. Although a typical meeting in 1992 still included voting on such legislation as the purchase of fire pump ladders, a ban on billboards in downtown Albany, an ordinance to beef up security measures within buildings, and the regulation of cable television companies, many of the ordinances caused controversy as members had differences of opinion. Mayor Corning had kept a tight control of Albany's government, including the Common Council.[27] Alderman Leonard Fox recalled that Aldermen periodically received phone calls from Corning, pressing them to pass a bill.[28] When Whalen took over for Corning and then was elected Mayor on his own right, the structure changed. Formal official agendas were developed, and the current format of dealing with the Council leadership evolved. A Times Union article reported that "Whalen's distance doesn't always sit well with the fifteen aldermen.... The council's self-described progressives are the most vocal critics of the mayor's methods. They say the less knowledge members have, the more they tend to bend to the mayor's will." As a result of this policy, some of the members felt that they were not able to do the job they were elected to do.[29] In reaction to this and other factors, Council members slowly began to exert their independence from the mayor and redefine their roles. They were no longer content to wait and receive ordinances and resolutions from the executive branch. They felt that they were entitled to take the initiative and draft their own bills. Gradually the vote tally on the Council reflected this change. It went from fifteen to zero, to thirteen to two and eventually evened out. Gerald Jennings and Nancy Burton initially were the two dissenting Aldermen on the Council. As early as 1986, Jennings stated to a reporter that the Council almost always toed the Whalen line and he was pushing for the members to exert their independence.[30] For the most part the members did not respond to Jennings' plea. For as the President of the Committee of Albany Neighborhood Associations, Harold Rubin pointed out, the members, "haven't made a full transition from a body dominated by a mayor who ran city government- all branches- to the point where they have to act as an independent body." In contrast, Whalen felt that the Common Council did have independence stating," I do feel it has autonomy. I don't feel that they perceive what comes out of the executive office as the final word. We have a fluid exchange of ideas." President Pro Tempore Joseph Buechs Jr. concurred saying that, "We take a proposal back and amend it."[31] At another point in the Times Union article Whalen asserted that he did not mind hearing objections to legislation and if Aldermen approached him more often, they might find him willing to compromise. The Council noted in 1990 that Whalen had only attended one meeting and that was in defense of his budget proposal. Keith St. John recommended more regular contact with Whalen be established so that he could hear the Council's objections and address their questions. For he felt strongly that, "The relationship with the mayor needs to be a policy one, not a political one."[32] The 1990 elections resulted in a greater number of independent voices on the Council. This independence was exerted on all levels of operation, from the budget process, to the demand for more information on legislation. Often Whalen was not pleased with what he viewed as a challenge to his authority. For example, the Times Union reported in 1993, that "A public fight has broken out between Whalen and members of the Common Council." During this fight, Whalen denounced the Council publicly. This fight was over a disagreement between Whalen and the Council on how a government block grant should be divided up. The Council refused to pass the legislation until they could resolve how the money would be distributed to the wards. An observer noted that, "We've seen a power shift. There has been more consensus building that the council needs to be independent, needs its own staff. The Aldermen are not afraid to speak out and oppose the mayor publicly." [32] The budget approval process is also a good indication of this shift. Year after year, the budget would pass the Council without any adjustments. When Whalen took office in 1983, the largest portion of the budget went towards providing the city with water, the Department of Public Safety (which oddly enough included the Board of Barbers and Barbershops) and employee benefits.[33] In the 1980s and early 1990s the largest percent of the budget still went to the public safety departments (49 percent). Fifteen percent was allocated for health assistance and cultural and recreational events. Another fifteen went to home and community services. With the last quarter set aside for transportation and "general government."[34] In 1984 Whalen forewarned the Council that expenditures would be tightly controlled in the current fiscal year. "Therefore, I have had to make some unpleasant decisions in balancing the budget such as a 4.5 increase in realty taxes."[35] Gradually he was able to build a budget surplus, in part because he relied heavily on State and federal aid. For a number of years Whalen was able to balance the City's budget by withdrawing money from this surplus, which had been building since he took office in 1983. His warning that the surplus would eventually be depleted proved to be prescient, for in time the budget surplus bottomed out. "The time for reckoning has come. And I think you will see why fiscal prudence has been wise for the city and wise for the tax payers." This reckoning was due in part to drastic cuts in federal and state aid (in 1991 it dropped from 12.7 to 8.8 million). While it lasted, this surplus enabled Whalen to include additional City services in the budget, without eliminating jobs. In 1992, he committed one million dollars towards affordable housing.[37] For a number of years he was also able to give City residents a tax break. For example the 1988 budget reduced the property rate by 6.4 percent.[38] Aldermen began to feel that the budget process itself should be challenged. As early as 1985 Jennings criticized the budget approval process. He stated that the Council set the spending plan and then the Board of Estimate and Appropriation changed the size of the budget appropriations throughout the year, thereby sidestepping the Council's original budget.[39] Then in 1986, Jennings commented that there was not sufficient review of the proposed pay increases of key city officials including the mayor. Although he agreed with the rationale that pay increases for officials would attract highly qualified and highly motivated individuals for city jobs, he did not approve of the process. Despite his objections the law passed thirteen to one.[40] Again in 1989, Jennings objected to the delegation of funds, stating that a larger portion of it should go towards fighting drug trafficking and improving police response time. But no one on the Finance Committee (who had already received, reviewed and recommended that the Council pass the budget) agreed with him and the budget was passed unaltered. [41] This would not be the last time that Aldermen would question the contents of the budget. In 1990 Sharon Ward claimed that the City was not taking the initiative to remedy the homeless situation. She advocated the inclusion of affordable housing programs in the budget. "I don't like that we are balancing the budget in '94 on the backs of people who are on the streets in 1990," she went on to object. Jennings too, found fault with the 1990 budget, pointing out that it provided inadequate staffing in the police department as well as the omission of the affordable housing issue. He was in the minority when he called for the Council to take a more active role in City issues, stating that, "We need to dictate the quality of life in the city."[42] In 1992 the Financial, called for greater control over the final budget. It wanted controls over the monitory figures so that it could increase expenditures, cut salaries or make other alterations to the budget.[43] At first Whalen was unappreciative of any criticism. But his attitude towards the budget review process gradually shifted, and during his last few years in office he invited the Council to assist in the actual budget drafting.[43] Jennings carried on this tradition, encouraging Aldermen to come up with budget cutting ideas in 1994.[44] The public also questioned the budget process. When the Finance Committee approved the 1987 budget and the Council planned to vote on it on the same night as the public hearing, many residents objected. The Neighborhood Association insisted that there be public comment on the budget and the review process. Harold Rubin commented that, "It is an insult to the public to recommend passage the same night the public hearing is held.... As a courtesy to the public, at least give the appearance of considering their suggestions."[45] The Council responded by delaying the vote for at least two weeks, in part because there was a difference in opinion on the Finance Committee. Some of the members still had questions and let Whalen know that they wanted to receive greater detail in the printed budget.[46] The public also complained that the printed budget lacked an index, description of departments' functions, and an explanation of spending and allocation. These were basic issues of public access.[47] Along with an assertion of independence came a sense of accountability and responsibility to one's ward. As early as 1986, the Council was nudged by the public to be more responsive to their needs. Most Aldermen were receptive to this request and became advocates for their wards. In 1988 a request was made to include cameras in the chambers, so that the proceedings could be televised. At fist the Council argued that cameras would be obtrusive and could stifle debate or appearances by citizens. Fears were also expressed that the media would distort events since they would only broadcast a few minutes of the meetings. Despite these objections, a committee was formed to meet with local television stations in order to attend a demonstration of new filming equipment and decide if cameras would be allowed. This review process was ongoing for years as the committee grappled with such decisions as hiring a cable company to tape the entire proceedings and the cost encured.[48] In 1986 the Council was debating over the issue of opening the pre-meeting to the public. This "pre-meeting" time allowed for review of the legislation and caucasing to take place. Buechs was strongly opposed to it, stating that an open caucus would, "Make it difficult to keep members attention because they are buttonholed by the media and constituents... and people coming in and lobbying for certain legislation. Whalen too voiced opposition to public hearings, labeling them a means of embarrassing people.[49] The Albany Council of League of Women Voters also requested an open caucus in a larger chamber and without the Aldermen sitting with their backs to the public. Buechs was not open to any of the recommendations and although they were eventually implemented, it was a slow process.[50] In 1993 the trend for greater public input continued. The Council unveiled a proposal for new rules, which would allow for greater public involvement and feedback. The proposal called for a half-hour before Council meetings to be set-aside for citizens' comments on the forthcoming legislation. The members were receptive to this, seeing it as the, "dusting off the city's legislature's longstanding rules."[51] They also realized that opening the meetings to the public allowed for comments and could help to promote good policy decisions and prevent bad ones from ever going through.[52] Another area in which public officials were held accountable for was in disproving the existence of a conflict of interest. The need for this legislation stemmed from a perceived conflict of interest with Mayor Whalen. While Mayor, he maintained his partnership in a private law firm, which at times was involved in city business. One way to prove that a conflict of interest did not exist was to reveal the source of your annual salary. A few Aldermen like Peter Horan were opposed to this bill, claiming that, "The big equalizer is the ballot box." He was concerned that the "Public perceives what the press pursues" and would assume the worse about the Council.[53] Despite these objections the Council passed an ordinance in 1989, which required public officials to submit financial disclosure information. Although, as Jennings pointed out, the form only provided three income categories (for under $10,000, $10,001-$50,000 and over $50,000). Nor did the form require one to disclose his or her spouse's income.[54] Therefore, if a public official wanted to avoid detection, funds could be transferred to their spouse's account.[55] For the most part this bill was ineffective since many officials forgot to file on time and the forms revealed very little information.[56] In an ultimate tribute to public democracy, in 1994 the newly elected mayor, Gerald Jennings planned "town meetings" in every ward. These meetings were seem as a forum for citizens to discuss concerns about their neighborhoods and the city. He also asked them to present their priorities for spending and programs.[57] Jennings stated that "I want to start this dialogue early in my tenure. It is very important that we keep open the lines of communication, we set up political agendas, and we work together to improve our neighborhoods." Most of the Council members appreciated this approach, noting that it is a good way to get feedback from your constituents and that the priorities on spending and programs were coming from the citizens as opposed to the officials.[58] The wave of independent voices on the Council in 1990 brought about a plethora of legislation initiated by the members. When Keith St. John joined the Council in 1990, he pushed a piece of legislation called "Omnibus Human Rights Law" into the forum. The law would add sexual orientation to the list of already protected classifications. It would also bar discrimination in jobs, housing and public accommodations.[59] The Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and Fair Housing would be empowered to make and accept discrimination claims from homosexuals, and investigate and enforce resolutions through mediation. The legislation was stalled for months over a conflict between St. John and Whalen. This conflict stemmed over a difference in opinion on whether or not religious institutions should be exempt. [60] In the end a compromise was reached between the two, and religious institutions were exempt from the body of the legislation.[61] The idea for this legislation did not originate with St. John. In 1988, Nancy Burton proposed similar legislation, which was defeated by a vote of twelve to two. This legislation was so unpopular with the Council that Joseph Buechs Jr. had trouble finding Aldermen willing to sit on a five person special committee to review the proposal.[61] St. John brought the legislation before the Council on two separate occasions. In 1991 it was again defeated by a vote of ten to five. Not to be deterred, the ordinance was before the Council again in December 1992. The Council members were evenly split on the issue and President Stephen McArdle was prepared to cast the deciding vote if it was required. This time it passed by a vote of eight to six, and Ordinance 47.81.92 was added to the city codes. The vote was open to the public and approximately seven hundred citizens showed up to debate and witness the voting.[63] St. John and other members on the Council envisioned an altered role for the Aldermen: A role in which one took initiative, rather than only acting on legislation that usually is generated by the city administration.[64] He stated that he'd like to tackle such issues as homelessness, anti-drug measures, affordable housing, childcare and creating the Martin Luther King Holiday in the City of Albany. One of the most radical steps the Council took was to vote to remove Joseph Buechs, Jr. (who had been a member of the Council since 1967)[65] from his position as President Pro Tempore in 1992. This aura of hostility originated with two pieces of legislation Buechs proposed, which would have changed a few of the rules of the Common Council. One bill would require Alderman to submit all legislation (not just ordinances) to the Corporation Council's office for formal drafting. Aldermen argued that the requirement that the Law Department draft all legislation would impede their initiatives and the Council's growing independence from Whalen.[65] Understandably, many Aldermen were opposed to it. Jennings opposition was so strong that he planned on suing if the bills were passed.[66] The other bill would allow a piece of legislation to be voted on over an Alderman's objections. The Council's objections were many. They felt that the bill denied them one of their best weapons in properly representing constituents, which was the right to table legislation until they were satisfied with it. They were also worried that Buechs could force items to vote before they had a chance to lobby fully for them with City Hall to work out objections. Or it could allow Buechs to push through unpopular legislation before opponents had sufficient time to lobby against it.[66] Buechs countered this objection, stating that the bill would speed things up in the Council process. His implication was that expediting legislation was the means to better represent your constituents. He defended his proposals to the Council, stating that they were intended to modernize the Council's proceedings and ensure that Alderman could not single handedly tie up legislation.[67] Many of the Aldermen viewed this as a struggle over power and the future direction of the Council. [68] Even a few Whalen "loyalists" were outspoken in their dissent.[69] This initial confrontation was quickly followed by a series of occurrences that alienated some of the members from Buechs. Angered by the closing of a fire station in the Pine Bush without public notification, legislation was drafted and passed requiring advance notice and a public hearing before police and fire stations could be closed. This bill was passed over Whalen and Buechs objections. The Times Union noted that this was probably the first time in seventy years that the Council had outright defied the mayor.[69] Then Buechs removed Sharon Ward from her seats on both the Environmental and Fire Committees, defending this action with the statement to her that she had, "Stepped on a couple toes in operating your committee, so we decided to take you off."[70] But, the foremost reason seemed to be the consensus that Buechs had grown too close to Whalen and was not adequately representing the legislature by taking their concerns to the mayor.[71] Buechs represented the "Old Guard" and the "rubber-stamp process" of previous administrations, and the general feeling on the Council was it was time for new, responsive leadership.[72] After Buechs refused to resign, the issue was brought to a vote. The outcome on April 6, 1992 was eight to six in favor of electing Joseph Lynn, Jr. as the new President Pro Tempore. Predominately senior Aldermen, like Leonard Fox, Thomas Rouke and Philip Di Pace, cast the dissenting votes. Although Lynn was not happy with how the Council had conducted this impeachment, he did feel that, "This is a process of catharsis that has to happen every once and awhile."[73] By 1994 the seeds that Nancy Burton, Jennings, St. John and others had sown had come to full fruition. Throughout 1994 articles in the Times Union reporting on Council activities used such phrases as, "A bitter argument erupted"[73] and "Aldermen skirmished over a proposed community development budget."[74] These actions would have been unthinkable in the 1940s or even as recently as the 1983 when Whalen took office. Upon his retirement, Alderman Leonard Fox (who had been a Council member since 1974) remembered a time when the job of an Alderman merely involved passing ordinances to fix sidewalks and potholes.[75] Generally the new members viewed the increase in debate on the Council as an important development in itself.[76] For it showed that the Council had evolved from a group of men and women who dealt with mundane legislation and followed the bidding of the Mayor, to an autonomous body. One obstacle in the Council's goal to achieve complete autonomy was their reliance on City staff for assistance and interpretation of ordinances. Prior to 1993 the Council had to rely on the City law department, which was controlled by the Mayor, for legal assistance. In May the Council hired a lawyer of their own on a part-time basis. As Jennings pointed out the City's attorneys could not represent both the legislative and the executive's interests simultaneously and objectively, particularly when the two branches of government disagreed.[77] This independence was not always directed at the Mayor. In 1994 when Robert Van Amburgh (the new President Pro Tempore) was handing out committee assignments, some of the members questioned how the assignments were determined. The general feeling was that members with seniority received choice assignments, while minorities were excluded, particularly from the Finance Committee. Since Shirley Foskey worked for a bank, she felt she should be on the Committee and that in general there needed to be a greater inclusion of all members.[76] Although this growing independence was a natural response by a Council freed of a controlling Mayor, it was at times hard to keep in perspective and occasionally had a negative effect. In 1994, the newly elected Council President, Joseph Lynn Jr. found that some of the new members were disrespectful of each other and his position, especially Michael Brown. Brown dubbed his fellow Alderpersons, "A bunch of do nothing folks"[77] and often engaged in arguments over both the wording of legislation and the procedures of the Council. Leonard Fox's retirement in 1994 may have been triggered in part by such insults. He commented that, "Today's Council has got their own agenda. You don't mind fighting but when your own people try to kick you down, it's just too much stress."[78] The independent exertion of the Council effected other legislation as well. In an interview for the Times Union Whalen stated that, "I've said that I think that the most perplexing and expensive problems facing local government from now to the year 2000 is the non-glitzy issue of what to do with our garbage." Over the next few years Whalen and the Common Council grappled over a solution for this very issue. They considered alternatives to landfills such as recycling and incinerators. In 1988 Whalen initiated a recycling program in the city of Albany.[86] But this did not stave off the need for the city to find an additional landfill. The City had an existing landfill in the environmentally sensitive Pine Bush region. This region spanned hundreds of acres, had a unique ecosystem and was home to the endangered Karner butterfly. A very active environmental group, calling themselves Save the Pine Bush Inc. had moderate success in barring the City from extending its existing landfill and developing within the Pine Bush. In 1985 the Council approved a $100,000 to study a new site for the City landfill. But Alderman Nicholas Coluccio refused to pass more extensive legislation authorizing the expenditure of $500,000 to begin the actual development of a landfill. He felt that the ordinance did not provide sufficient information, such as a map of the site.[87] Jennings also questioned the location of the site, because he was uncertain if the land to be purchased by the City had been set aside for preservation.[88] The administration did not act with haste in finding a new site. In 1988 the State Department of Environmental Conservation reluctantly approved a site in the Pine Bush because the city lacked a viable solution. A good suggestion was made that possible alternatives to this site included increasing the height of the garbage at the existing landfill and closing the dump off to surrounding municipalities that were currently using it. But the City did neither. In 1991 the City, with the Council's approval began the process of finding a site for the new dump.[89] Soon this temporary site proved to be insufficient. In 1994 the City was still searching for a viable solution to its garbage problem.[90] At that point the Council was considering passing an ordinance that would ship trash out of town.[91] Although the Council concurred that a new landfill site needed to be found they often questioned the Mayor Whalen proposals and solutions. In 1993, they delayed a vote on a proposed landfill site because many Aldermen had additional questions about the ordinance. Joseph Lynn Jr. was willing to table it in order to give the opposition more time to have their questions answered. He explained his sensitized response by stating that, "I didn't want to push. It seemed appropriate to hold off for a couple, three weeks."[91] The more recent battle over the fate of the Pine Bush region began during the Corning administration. In 1975, a routine public hearing over zoning issues yielded a large and organized turnout, piloted by Don Rittner.[92] This public protest was over a number of ordinances before the Council, which would have allowed developed Neil Hellman to alter a large section of the Pine Bush. When the series of ordinances came before the Council, all of them failed by a vote of fifteen to zero. These ordinances had called for designating the Pine Bush a heavy manufacturing area, a commercial area, a light industrial area and the construction of a highway.[93] Rittner attributed the outcome of this vote to two factors. One was the organization and force behind the protest at the public hearing held that July. The other was his personal plea to Corning to preserve this pristine section of the Pine Bush (Corning in turn instructed the Council on how to vote). For he asserts that, "...whatever the Mayor said was what the Common Council did. They were just puppets at the time anyway."[94] But this was only one of the many battles fought between Save the Pine Bush Inc. and the administration. With each move to develop, Save the Pine Bush Inc. countered. A study by the City planners on the impact of development on the Pine Bush region submitted to the Albany Planning Board was attacked for being pro-development.[95] The group in particular was responding to a statement in the report that," The critical issue now is not prohibition of any and all development... but rather the intelligent management of the substantial preservation areas which have been and will continue to be set aside." The Planning Board believed that both development and preservation could co-exist. While Save the Pine Bush felt they were mutaly exclusive. Whalen supported development and several ordinances of this nature were brought before the Council. He took this stance because if the City was not allowed to develop in the Pine Bush, it would lose valuable revenue. On the surface this concern seems unfounded due to the City's budget surplus, but as Whalen had eerily predicted, the surplus had evaporated by 1994.[96] Save the Pine Bush Inc. brought many legal suits against the City. In 1986, Mayor Whalen called for a moratorium on Pine Bush development until the final Environmental Impact Statement was completed.[97] But for the most part the City and Council did not stay within these ruling's parameters. For example, the State Empire Federal Credit Union (upon the approval of a zoning ordinance passed by the Council who was not aware of the full environmental impact at the time of the vote) planned to build in the Pine Bush in 1985 but a restraining order has been placed on them because they failed to disclose that they planned to construct a septic tank to handle 2,600 gallons a day.[98] Or Edward Conway's (a State Supreme Court Justice) ruling that the City of Albany should have studied the cumulative impact of all of pending construction before allowing development of the new office park. The Times Union reported that, "The decision represents an interpretation of the State Environment Quality Review Act which requires that the environmental impact of projects be studies and weighed before development is approved. Conway's ruling says, in effect, that it is not enough to study the environmental impact of one project at a time, but that the effect of all pending development must be taken into consideration."[99] In 1985 there were ten projects pending, each calling for further development.[100] Despite the lack of proper Environmental Impact Statements, the Council continued to approve developing and Save the Pine Bush continued to sue. Many of the ordinances before the Council dealt with issues of modernization. They were as minor as, "An Ordinance authorizing and directing the purchase of one new IBM mainframe computer for use by the comptroller of the city of Albany and appropriating funds and expenses thereof"[77] which passed in 1975. Or as routine as repealing old ordinances that were still in the city codes. These included a June 9, 1884 ordinance relating to the standing of wagons without a horse. Or a June 9, 1884 law relating to lights required on bicycles.[78] But some of modernization issues before the Aldermen were complex, dealing with the direction and responsibilities of the Council. Sometimes the rhetoric of modernization was evoked to appeal to the other Council members for passage of an ordinance. In 1985, Nancy Burton proposed an ordinance calling for downtown parking permits. The permit system would give residents around the plaza area the right to buy an annual permit allowing them unlimited street parking. Non-residents would only be able to park for ninety minutes or face a fine. In reference to her legislation, Burton stated that, "It grabs us and throws us into the 21st century. Albany has been slow to make widespread, systematic changes."[79] Jennings also defended a piece of legislation [the financial disclosure act] with the statement that, "If we are moving into the 21st century, it is something we out to look into."[80] In 1993 the City was required to draw new district lines. This was mandated by federal legislation, which required that every ten years district lines be altered to reflect changes shown in the most recent census. The 1990 census placed the population of Albany at 100,000. It also revealed that approximately a quarter of the population was either Black or Hispanic. Therefore, four minority wards needed to be created to reflect this. The Council's Redistricting Committee[81] was entrusted with the task of mapping out new ward boundaries.[82] The main challenge of the Committee was to draw new lines while at the same time respecting neighborhood divisions.[83] An unforeseen conflict with the many proposed new wards was that some of the earlier versions of the plan placed current Aldermen in the same ward (which meant that incumbents would be running against each other). This would create a problem at election time if Alderpersons could not remain in their districts with their loyal supporters.[84] After many drafts, a redistricting plan that addressed these issues was approved in April, leaving plenty of time before the November elections.[85] The local chapter of the NAACP then sent it to their headquarters in DC to check if it complied with the 1964 Voting Rights Act.[84] Throughout this eleven-year period finances continued to be dominate the Council activities. The City's financial status was on a slow decline. In 1986 the city was able to take advantage of the federal revenue sharing programs. "Big taxpayers such as telephones, cable and railroad companies were pumping nearly 4.3 million into the City's coffers, more than fifteen percent of the city's tax revenue. A building boom was in full swing, with permits that year reaching a record setting 90.3 million dollars."[100] Later on, the city was able to profit from an increase in sales tax revenue. But by 1992 the financial picture was much dimmer. A decline in State and federal aid also cut deeply into the budget surplus. All told, the cuts totaled at least 21.2 million dollars between 1987 and 1993.[101] As the City's surplus slowly trickled down to zero, both Whalen and then Jennings contrived many schemes to bring in added revenue. In 1992 Whalen predicted that, "If we look to 1994, there's the black hole. You're talking about real property tax increases that are atrocious. You're talking about layoffs.... I'd be tarred and feathered."[102] A major problem was that approximately seventy percent of the property within the City was tax exempt- most of the exempt property was owned by the State.[103] In 1994 Jennings attempted to create a commuter tax, but State officials declared that such a tax would be unconstitutional and that it unfairly discriminated against non-residents. In response, Jennings asked that the Albany receive special status and treatment from the State in the form of additional state aid.[104] At the end of the year, this request remained unfulfilled. Both Whalen and Jennings proposed an higher utility tax, which would bring an estimated 3.2 million into the city coffers.[105] Whalen and the majority of the Council envisioned the tax as a way to spread the tax burden to renters, businesses, and not-for-profits. The bill passed the Council by a vote of eleven to four, but died in the State Senate.[105] Reversing his earlier stance, Jennings proposed a utility tax hike. The Aldermen did not support this idea, telling him to tighten his own belt before squeezing ratepayers. As an Alderman in 1990, Jennings had opposed a similar bill calling it "taxation without representation."[106] His opinion reflected that of a minority of the Council who argued that the hike would be an unfair burden on the poor and elderly.[107] When he was an Alderman, Jennings had been especially critical of Whalen. When Whalen asked that all departments trim their budgets by five percent, Jennings responded by saying, "I don't understand how he is going to cut five percent in the major departments without affecting delivery of services. Obviously, jobs would be a priority if I were the chief executive."[107] But by 1994 Jennings was warning the Council that the City would be facing a deficit the following year that could mean a property tax hike as high as fifty percent unless there were cuts in expenditures or increased revenue.[108] He also planned on restructuring City departments, cutting the number by half (for Jennings saw a replication of functions and services taking place) in order to balance the budget.[109] As 1994 drew to a close, the fate of Albany seemed opaque. Jennings was desperate to avoid laying off and downsizing City employees. But State and Federal aid were drying up and remedies for alternative revenue had been thwarted by the State Assembly. The only alternative left to Jennings was to increase the property taxes within the City. This was just one of the many changes the City was experiencing. As Stephen McArdle pointed out," Albany was a quiet city with low taxes and not too many responsibilities for the Aldermen. All of the sudden taxes went up dramatically and when the taxes went up dramatically, people wanted better representation and became more involved."[110] This demand for better representation was reflected in the make-up of the Council and their push to establish themselves as an independent branch of government. This trend continues today in 1999. Endnotes
[1] "The city According to Whalen," Albany (NY) Times Union, 17 January 1988, A3. Return to Text [2] "Minorities signaled out by Albany police," Albany (NY) Times Union, 13 March 1988, B4. Return to Text [3] Jon Teaford, Twentieth -Century American Cities (Baltimore, MD: University of John Hopkins Press, 1990) 156. Return to Text [4] "Rainy day is here: city spends surplus," Albany (NY) Times Union, 13 November 1991, B6. Return to Text [5] Minutes of the Proceedings of the Common Council of the City of Albany 1983, Volume 22,no. 130, 11 July 1983 p. 859. Return to Text [6] Minutes of the Proceedings of the Common Council of the City of Albany 1983, Volume 22, no. 109, 9 June 1983 p. 661. Return to Text [7] 1993 Common Council Calendar (Albany, NY: Allied Printing) Return to Text [8] "Ethics panel chairmen first to list finances," Albany (NY) Times Union, 21 March 1989, B2. Return to Text [9] "Buechs steps down from Albany Common Council," Albany (NY) Times Union, 2 December 1992, A1. Return to Text [10] "Officials miss disclosure deadline," Albany (NY) Times Union, 18 May 1994, B4. Return to Text [13] "Whale's influence felt in city races, Albany (NY) Times Union, 30 August 1989, B1. Return to Text [14] "Albany votes put 4 independent voices on the council," Albany (NY) Times Union, 8 November 1989, B6. Return to Text [15] "Whalen's influence felt in city races," Albany (NY) Times Union, 30 August 1989, B1. Return to Text [16] "Albany voters put 4 independent voices on Council," Albany (NY) Times Union TU, 8 November 1989, B1. Return to Text [ Return to Text []] 18 "Brace, Lynn see different roles for Common Council President," Albany (NY) Times Union, 9 September 1993, B6. Return to Text [19] "New faces on the Council, " Albany (NY) Times Union, 10 November 1993, B4. Return to Text [22] Minutes of the Proceedings of Common Council of the City of Albany 1983, Volume 22, no. 171, 7 September 1983, p. 1103. Return to Text [23] 1991 Albany Common Council Calendar (Albany, NY: Allied Printing) Return to Text [24] Minutes of the Proceeding of the Common Council of the City of Albany 1975, Volume Return to Text [25] Jay Jochnowitz, "The control of city hall: Whalen's elite circle keeps its distance from council's commoners," 20 May 1990, B2. Return to Text [26] "Council split over power centralization," Albany (NY) Times Union, 11 March 1991, B1. Return to Text [27] Stephen McArdle, interview by Jennifer Lemak, 22 April 1999, 826 Madison Avenue, Albany, NY. Return to Text [28] "The control of city hall: Whalen's elite circle keeps its distance from council's commoners," Albany (NY) Times Union, 20 May 1990, B2. Return to Text [29] "Council meeting marked by controversy," Albany (NY)Times Union, 20 May 1990, B2 Return to Text [30] "Jennings is Albany council maverick," Albany (NY) Times Union, 14 December 1986, B1. Return to Text [31] Ibid. Return to Text [32] "The control of City Hall: Whalen's elite circle keeps its distance from council's commoners," Albany (NY) Times Union, 20 May 1990, B12. Return to Text [32] "Albany Common Council tipping scales of power," Albany (NY) Times Union, 17 June 1993, B1. Return to Text [33] Minutes of the Proceedings of the Common Council of the City of Albany 1983, Volume 22, no. 195, 2 October 1983, p. 1302. Return to Text [34] "Police, fire services seen budget issues," Albany (NY) Times Union, 14 November 1991, B2. Return to Text [35] Minutes of the Proceedings of the Common Council of the City of Albany 1984, Volume 23, no. 214 13 November 1984, p. 1368. 36 "Rainy days are here as city spends surplus" Albany (NY) Times Union, 13 November 1991, B6. Return to Text [37] "Whalen proposes $95.3M budget, 7% tax hike in '92," Albany (NY) Times Union, 13 November 1991, B1. Return to Text [38] "City Council postpones passage of '88 budget," Albany (NY) Times Union, 8 December 1988, B2. Return to Text [39] "City Council expected to focus on personnel at budget hearing," Albany (NY) Times Union, 18 November 1985, B2. Return to Text [40] "Whalen denies conflict of interest," Albany (NY) Times Union, 8 July 1986, B1. Return to Text [41] "Jennings loses bid to beef up Albany Police Department," Albany (NY) Times Union, 30 November 1988, B2. Return to Text [42] "Albany budget earns unanimous approval," Albany (NY) Times Union, 18 December 1990, B8. Return to Text [43] "Albany faces hard times," Albany (NY) Times Union, 22 November 1992, C7. Return to Text [43] "Albany approves a 9% tax hike," Albany (NY) Times Union, 22 December 1992, B5. Return to Text [44] "Albany tax increase biggest since '81," Albany (NY) Times Union, 14 October 1994, B1. Return to Text [45] "Hearing, passage scheduled on budget," Albany (NY) Times Union, 17 November 1986, B2. Return to Text [46] "City Council postpones passage of '88 budget," Albany (NY) Times Union, 8 December 1987, B2. Return to Text [47] "City Council expected to focus on personnel at budget hearing," Albany (NY) Times Union, 18 November 1985, B2. Return to Text [48] "Panel to discuss camera use during Common Council proceedings," Albany (NY) Times Union, 16 March 1988, B2. Return to Text [49] "Albany council defeats proposal on fire, police notification," Albany (NY) Times Union, 5 May 1992, B4. Return to Text [50] "Buechs considers holding council caucus meetings in private," Albany (NY) Times Union, 14 November 1986, B2. Return to Text [51] "Council passes public talk," Albany (NY) Times Union, 5 May 1993, B3. Return to Text [52] "Albany council defeats proposal on fire, police notification," Albany (NY) Times Union, 5 May 1992, B4. Return to Text [53] "Aldermen would limit financial disclosures: Council's ethics panel takes straw poll," Albany (NY) Times Union, 28 May 1987, B2. Return to Text [54] "Council adopts financial disclosure law: compliance optional for Albany's elected, appointed officials," Albany (NY) Times Union, 6 January 1989, B4. Return to Text [55] "Council adopts financial disclosure law: compliance optional for Albany's elected, appointed officials," Albany (NY) Times Union, 6 January 1989, B4. Return to Text [56] "Officials miss disclosure deadline," Albany (NY) Times Union, 18 May 1994, B4. Return to Text [57] "Jennings plans meeting in all 15 wards," Albany (NY) Times Union, 8 January 1994, B3. Return to Text [58] "Jennings visits 12 wards, looking for help to define an agenda," Albany (NY) Times Union, 13 January 1994, B4. Return to Text [59] "Whalen wants limit on gay-rights bill," Albany (NY) Times Union, 13 August 1992, B3. Return to Text [60] "Hearings Thursday on Albany anti-bias measure," Albany (NY) Times Union, 7 November 1992, B3. Return to Text [61] "Whalen wants limit on gay-rights bill," Albany (NY) Times Union, 13 August 1992, B3. Return to Text [61] "Burton receives threats in support of Albany homosexuals" Albany (NY) Times Union, 15 March 1987, B1. 62 "Council: Albany Oks measure to protect gays," Albany (NY) Times Union, 8 December 1992, A10. Return to Text [63] Stephen McArdle, interview by Jennifer Lemark, 22 April 1999. Return to Text ["] Common Council elections," Albany (NY) Times Union, 1 9 November 1989, B1. Return to Text [ Return to Text []] 65 "Council split over power centralization," Albany (NY) Times Union, 11 March 1991, B2. Return to Text [66] "Albany Council to vote on rule change," 4 October 1991, B2. Return to Text [66] "Council split over power centralization," Albany (NY) Times Union, 11 March 1991, B2. Return to Text [67] Ibid. Return to Text [68] "Alderman oppose plan to curb bill-offering powers," Albany (NY) Times Union, 6 March 1991, B2. 69 "Rebel Aldermen to face Buechs," Albany (NY) Times Union, 29 February 1992, B4. Return to Text [69] "Whalen loyalists dissent," Albany (NY) Times Union, 29 October 1991, B2. Return to Text [ Return to Text []] 70 "Council rebels against Buechs," Albany (NY) Times Union, 13 February 1992, B1. Return to Text [71] Ibid. Return to Text [ ] 72 "Lynn in, Buechs out as Council's pro tempore," Albany (NY) Times Union, 7 April 1992, B1. Return to Text [73] Ibid. Return to Text [73] "Aldermen criticizes water board," Albany (NY) Times Union, 8 February 1994, B3. Return to Text [74] "Aldermen debate community funds," Albany (NY) Times Union, 21 June 1994, B3. Return to Text [75] "Fox, longtime alderman and parking unit chief, to step down," Albany (NY) Times Union, 16 March 1993, B6. Return to Text [76] "Jennings plans to meet in all 15 wards," Albany (NY) Times Union, 8 January 1994, B3. Return to Text [77] "Albany Council hires county judge's daughter as its own lawyer," Albany (NY) Times Union, 30 May 1993, B3. Return to Text [76] "Poor wards slighted, minority officials say," Albany (NY) Times Union, 21 January 1994, B10. Return to Text [77] "Feisty aldermen shakes up Albany Common Council," Albany (NY) Times Union, 11 April 1994, B1. Return to Text [78] "Fox, long time alderman and parking unit chief to step down," Albany (NY) Times Union, 16 March 1993, B6. Return to Text [86] "Waste recycling specialist named: Albany plans pilot program," Albany (NY) Times Union, 19 March 1988, B2. Return to Text [87] "$100,000 landfill study approved," Albany (NY) Times Union, 16 July 1985, B2. Return to Text [88] "Council Spared Sparring by Withdrawal of 2 Zoning issues," Albany (NY) Times Union, 21 May 1985, B1. Return to Text [89] "Common Council Oks solid-waste proposal," Albany (NY) Times Union, 16 April 1991, B2. Return to Text [90] "Environmental Conservation put conditions on Albany landfill: Department blames city for dragging its feet on waste," Albany (NY) Times Union, 10 December 1988, B2. Return to Text [91] "Albany explores deal to ship out its trash," Albany (NY) Times Union, 14 April 1994, B1. Return to Text [91] "Council delays vote on landfill," Albany (NY) Times Union, 20 June 1993, B1. Return to Text [92] Don Ritter, interviewed by Kerry Nelson, 25 November 1998, Learning Factory, Albany, NY. Return to Text [93] Minutes of the Proceeding of the Common Council of the City of Albany 1975, Volume14, no. 136, 23 July 1975, p. 2100. Return to Text [94] Don Ritter interviewed by Kerry Nelson. Return to Text [95] "Save the Pine Bush assails city planners ecology study," Albany (NY) Times Union, 31 July 1985, B2. Return to Text [96] "Pine Bush Ruling Seem as Landmark," Albany (NY) Times Union, 26 June 1985, B1. Return to Text [97] "Pine Bush study could fuel battle," Albany (NY) Times Union, 19 February 1986, B2. Return to Text [98] "Group files action on Pine Bush project," Albany (NY) Times Union, 8 August 1985, B2. Return to Text [99] "Pine Bush Ruling Seem as Landmark," Albany (NY) Times Union, 26 June 1985, B1. Return to Text [100] "Conway reappears in Pine Bush saga," Albany (NY) Times Union, 1 July 1985, B2. Return to Text [77] Minutes of the Proceedings of the Common Council of the City of Albany 1984, Volume 23, no. 119 27 June 1984, p. 821. Return to Text [78] Minutes of the Proceeding of the Common Council of the City of Albany 1983, Volume 22, no. 252 5 January 1984 p, 2157, 2161. Return to Text [79] "Parking permit system OK'd; state union vows challenge," Albany (NY) Times Union, 6 March 1985, A1. Return to Text [80] "Mayor's Salary hike plan questioned by alderman," Albany (NY) Times Union, 20 June 1986, B2. Return to Text [81] "Albany NAACP wants 4 wards with minorities in the majority," Albany (NY) Times Union, 7 January 1993, B4. Return to Text [82] "Reappointment plan gives minorities more power," Albany (NY) Times Union, 19 February 1993, B4. Return to Text [83] "Minorities dispute ward lines," Albany (NY) Times Union, 7 January 1993, B4. Return to Text [84] "City redistricting creates more than minority lines," Albany (NY) Times Union, 12 April 1993, B3. Return to Text [85] "Albany creates 4 minority wards in redistricting," Albany (NY) Times Union, 8 April 1993, B4. Return to Text [84] Ibid. Return to Text [100] "November 1992 "Albany faces up to hard times," Albany (NY) Times Union, 22 November 1992, C1. Return to Text [101] Ibid. Return to Text [102] "Whalen hopes utility tax alleviates fiscal trouble," Albany (NY) Times Union, 28 May 1992, B2. Return to Text [103] "Albany continues to hunt for revenues,"Albany (NY) Times Union, 28 June 1994, B1. Return to Text [104] Ibid. Return to Text [105] "Whalen hopes utility tax alleviates fiscal trouble," Albany (NY) Times Union, 28 May 1992, B2. Return to Text [105] "Whalen wins land sale, but loses on utility tax," Albany (NY) Times Union, 4 July 1992, B4. Return to Text [106] "Council members question priorities of Jennings' budget," Albany (NY) Times Union, 25 April 1994, B1. Return to Text [107] "Utility tax increase approved: Albany residents to pay 3%," Albany (NY) Times Union, 3 April 1990, B1. Return to Text [107] "Whalen urges cuts in personnel before axing events," Albany (NY) Times Union, 8 April 1993, B1. Return to Text [108] "Council members question priorities of Jennings' budget," Albany (NY) Times Union, 25 April 1994, B1. Return to Text [109] "Albany tax increase biggest since '81," Albany (NY) Times Union, 14 October 1994, B1. Return to Text
Appendix A
* Appointed by Mayor Whalen to replace Stephen McArdle. Source: Minutes of the Proceedings of the Common Council of the City of Albany, Volume 22, no. 24, p. 6.
Appendix B
Appendix C
Source: 1994 Albany, NY City Directory (Malden, MA: R.L. Polk & Company). * Shirley Foskey was appointed by Mayor Whalen in 1993 to replace Joseph Buechs, Jr. who resigned. Source: "Activists criticize Whalen’s Choice for 5th Ward alderman," Albany (NY) Times Union, 12 February 1993, B5.
|