The special meeting of the village board was cancelled. Mayor Dungan and both working trustees showed up, and there was some confusion on the part of Trustee Osborne about whether a meeting was even scheduled, but no meeting took place.
According to Dungan, the outstanding personnel issue which led to the special meeting "became moot" after discussion with the village attorney, but there was not enough time to cancel it in advance.
A journalist who was present asked about "rampant speculation" that the personnel issue was, in fact, an attempt to replace Trustee Kimbiz. Dungan asserted that such was not the case.
I asked the mayor about his letter to the New Paltz Times, asserting that mayor-elect West should remember that Trustee Kimbiz was elected with over 900 votes, while West was voted in with around 400.
"It was off by a factor of ten," he said, with no further explanation.
The reorganization meeting for the village will take place on June 8.
.png)
Showing posts with label Brian Kimbiz. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brian Kimbiz. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Friday, May 20, 2011
Brian Kimbiz, it's time to resign
The poll we have running here at the Gadfly is currently 18-0 in favor of Brian Kimbiz resigning is seat on the village board. Kimbiz is now on vacation, a situation I find unacceptable. Kimbiz already as the third-worst attendance in the last decade (as compiled by Brittany Turner), and I can't imagine his taking off to find himself is going to make him a more effective trustee. His belief that simply not taking money and staying in touch via email is insulting to village residents, as well as completely unrealistic.
Not surprisingly, there is no policy or law which requires trustees to show up, much less gives anybody the power to kick them out of office. To his credit, Mr. Kimbiz would be within his rights to continue to collect his salary.
It's time to quit, Mr. Kimbiz. We have had three trustees who barely show up for a long time now, and we can't afford to have one who isn't around at all. It takes trustees to run a village, and you're not here to vote, which is the only thing that you're actually paid to do. Vote on things, after studying and debating them. If you can't vote, you need to go.
Mind you, if Kimbiz leaves, there's going to be yet another special election for a single trustee seat's unexpired term of one year, and that will cost money. I certainly hope that the attendance policy which the new board passes will include a clause that would shift that cost onto the exiting trustee except in rare circumstances. Patrick O'Donnell and Robert Feldman also left their seats early, and should have paid for the election to find their replacements. Mr. O'Donnell made a business decision, and Mr. Feldman (so I'm told) resigned because he couldn't handle working with his opponent in the mayoral race of 2003, Jason West.
New Paltz residents should not have to put up with absentee trusteeism; nor should we have to pay for special elections when our trustees leave to make more money, do good deeds elsewhere, or just as a form of temper tantrum.
Mr. Kimbiz, it's time to man up and resign. We'll send you a bill for the special election in a few months.
Not surprisingly, there is no policy or law which requires trustees to show up, much less gives anybody the power to kick them out of office. To his credit, Mr. Kimbiz would be within his rights to continue to collect his salary.
It's time to quit, Mr. Kimbiz. We have had three trustees who barely show up for a long time now, and we can't afford to have one who isn't around at all. It takes trustees to run a village, and you're not here to vote, which is the only thing that you're actually paid to do. Vote on things, after studying and debating them. If you can't vote, you need to go.
Mind you, if Kimbiz leaves, there's going to be yet another special election for a single trustee seat's unexpired term of one year, and that will cost money. I certainly hope that the attendance policy which the new board passes will include a clause that would shift that cost onto the exiting trustee except in rare circumstances. Patrick O'Donnell and Robert Feldman also left their seats early, and should have paid for the election to find their replacements. Mr. O'Donnell made a business decision, and Mr. Feldman (so I'm told) resigned because he couldn't handle working with his opponent in the mayoral race of 2003, Jason West.
New Paltz residents should not have to put up with absentee trusteeism; nor should we have to pay for special elections when our trustees leave to make more money, do good deeds elsewhere, or just as a form of temper tantrum.
Mr. Kimbiz, it's time to man up and resign. We'll send you a bill for the special election in a few months.
Disclosure: I contacted Mr. Kimbiz via Facebook around the last village elections, asking him to comment on a rumor that he was planning on resigning. He did not directly respond, but he did remove me from his friends.
Update: Mr. Kimbiz has advised me that the defriending took place "well before" my inquiry.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Village Board candidate profile: Pete Healey
I was really excited when Pete Healey contacted me about being profiled as a Village Board candidate, because his previous year-long stint had a really interesting ending. The second significant New Paltz write-in campaign in recent history led to Brian Kimbiz taking the seat by one vote, but Pete was quick to point out that he didn't actually lose.
As he explains it, the reports of the recount claim that four votes were identified as miscounted, but such was not actually the case. Although he did not review the files until after his opportunity to appeal had passed, he discovered that one of those four votes was actually a disputed vote, rather than a miscounted one. The Village's election inspectors ruled that a write-in vote for "Kazmin" couldn't be assigned to any of the three candidates in that race (the third being Patrick O'Donnell, who was elected, served as both trustee and Deputy Mayor, and then stepped down prematurely; this happens a lot in village politics). During the recount, he explains, the county election commissioners overruled their decision, and gave that vote to Brian Kimbiz, in an action that Healey calls illegal. Had they not done so, he and Kimbiz would have tied . . . or if Healey had cast a vote for himself, he would have been the victor.
He doesn't shy away from not voting for himself, nor is he apologetic. "I may not vote for myself again, but I may spend more than five minutes and five dollars campaigning," he said, referencing a quote about his campaign efforts in that race. His reason for his vote? "It's an ego thing," he says, explaining that he feels that if he needs his single vote to get elected, that he probably just shouldn't serve.
His reason for not campaigning is more pragmatic: when Kimbiz was removed from the ballot after many of his nominating petition signatures were successfully challenged, it appeared to be a two-person race for two seats. He wasn't aware of the write-in effort that Kimbiz launched, and focused on other things.
The election that Pete Healey didn't win
He doesn't shy away from not voting for himself, nor is he apologetic. "I may not vote for myself again, but I may spend more than five minutes and five dollars campaigning," he said, referencing a quote about his campaign efforts in that race. His reason for his vote? "It's an ego thing," he says, explaining that he feels that if he needs his single vote to get elected, that he probably just shouldn't serve.
His reason for not campaigning is more pragmatic: when Kimbiz was removed from the ballot after many of his nominating petition signatures were successfully challenged, it appeared to be a two-person race for two seats. He wasn't aware of the write-in effort that Kimbiz launched, and focused on other things.
The push for unification
Pete has been a voice for unification in New Paltz for years, and he's watching the process of the committee charged with studying the issue closely (I can't recall the exact name of it, these committee names all start to sound alike after a time). They compiled results of a survey which, he tells me, indicate that 75% of respondents are in favor of fewer governments. As for the 25 people who responded that they strongly disagreed with the idea of unification, "It will be good for them, too."
He views unification as an opportunity to create a government that's inclusive, and he wants the process to reflect that goal. "We have to find a way to make sure we never have a secretive old fool or a bully in charge," he said, meaning that he wants to prevent a strong executive by including checks and balances on the position's power. He's frustrated by the roadblocks he sees; particularly he wonders why the Town Council hasn't appointed a co-chair to the advisory panel, a task which they were expected to perform by August. The working group had been promised the co-chair for the advisory group (if you're confused, join the club; I have to wonder if the structure is so complex for any good reason) last week, but it hadn't happened by the time I spoke with Pete last Saturday.
Pete favors the village form of government, because state law strictly proscribes how a town government functions. Villages, he says, have the flexibility of a city without the rules. He intends on lobbying aggressively to see the committee's work to completion, and he is looking to get a pro-unification board elected this May, when four seats in total will be up for grabs. He believes that "some aspect of proportionality" should be incorporated into the new government, effectively breaking the Democratic stranglehold on New Paltz.
Time for a fire district?
Is a fire district the solution to our endless discussions about funding fire prevention? Pete says not yet . . . he'd like the unification study to finish its work before that issue is brought to the voters. "Give us six months," to sort out these questions, he says, and if a fire district turns out to be the best option, he'll be all for it. He isn't bashful about accusing Toni Hokanson of manipulating the process, either, which is in keeping with Terry Dungan's letter in last week's paper, which accused her of causing the entire funding scrap by withholding the Town payments for fire services. As he points out, the Town tried to force a vote on a fire district referendum during the alleged joint meeting held back in July.
He also questions the proposed structure, however. Why not look into combining fire and rescue operations, he ponders. Most surrounding towns have fire and rescue districts, and he thinks that if a district is pursued that a merger should be the first question to pose.
Because I asked . . .
Pete believes that building in wetlands should be strictly controlled. Victorian Square, in particular, is a development that he believes never should have gotten out of the planning stages.
Pete is seeking other candidates with a pro-unification stance to run this March.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Will the Village Board please show up?
We've got a fiscal crisis in our little village, and it's a really controversial one. Terry Dungan unilaterally issued a spending freeze to all departments, including our firefighters, which has caused all manner of to-do. The fire cuts have the Town Council screaming even as they slash things like the library and the YMCA funding for similar reasons. People are pointing fingers, assessing figures, and laying blame.
Well, today I have a special request for the Village Board. I'd like you to show up.
Erin Quinn reports this week that when a motion to modify the controversial spending freeze came up before the Village Board, one that would have permitted department heads to make important purchases with approval, it failed. Here's how the vote went:
Here's a news flash: we elected you, and pay you, to show up and meetings and vote. That is what you are supposed to do. I understand that things come up, but maybe it's time to reassess your priorities.
I don't think expecting 95% attendance at meetings would be unreasonable. Things come up, and sometimes they're actually more important than the residents of the village. Missing one meeting a year should cover emergencies. If your life is such that this is unduly burdensome . . . maybe it's time to resign.
It's a tough job, it's an underpaid job, and it's a job that makes you a target more than it makes you a hero - and you all knew that when you decided to run. Make a commitment to show up. This is a small enough village that I don't think it would be that tough to make a really, really tough attendance policy the law, but I would rather see you just do your jobs.
This isn't personal - or rather, it's very personal when the lives of the people you have pledged to represent take short shrift because you just couldn't make it to the meeting, or you were far too busy to attend the entire thing. No, I have seen other former board members pull the same stunts, and it's time to suck it up and do your jobs.
On behalf of the village, I"m begging you - don't miss another meeting. We trusted you with the job, please . . . do it.
Well, today I have a special request for the Village Board. I'd like you to show up.
Erin Quinn reports this week that when a motion to modify the controversial spending freeze came up before the Village Board, one that would have permitted department heads to make important purchases with approval, it failed. Here's how the vote went:
- Terry Dungan: aye.
- Patrick O'Donnell: aye.
- Jean Gallucci: nay.
- Shari Osborn: unable to be found at the time of the vote.
- Brian Kimbiz: didn't even show up.
Here's a news flash: we elected you, and pay you, to show up and meetings and vote. That is what you are supposed to do. I understand that things come up, but maybe it's time to reassess your priorities.
I don't think expecting 95% attendance at meetings would be unreasonable. Things come up, and sometimes they're actually more important than the residents of the village. Missing one meeting a year should cover emergencies. If your life is such that this is unduly burdensome . . . maybe it's time to resign.
It's a tough job, it's an underpaid job, and it's a job that makes you a target more than it makes you a hero - and you all knew that when you decided to run. Make a commitment to show up. This is a small enough village that I don't think it would be that tough to make a really, really tough attendance policy the law, but I would rather see you just do your jobs.
This isn't personal - or rather, it's very personal when the lives of the people you have pledged to represent take short shrift because you just couldn't make it to the meeting, or you were far too busy to attend the entire thing. No, I have seen other former board members pull the same stunts, and it's time to suck it up and do your jobs.
On behalf of the village, I"m begging you - don't miss another meeting. We trusted you with the job, please . . . do it.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Let's shed some light on our ongoing developments
The Village's Environmental Conservation Commission has come up with a novel way to legally gain access to sites under development: make one of them an acting building inspector. It's an idea that reminds me of Terry Dungan's brief stint as acting meter maid parking enforcement officer, with one big difference: it would work.
I think that most of what Terry does comes from good intentions, but suffers from a classic case of don'tknowhowtoshowmyworkitis, which is all too common among teachers. In fact, it's the teacher's "shoemaker's children" syndrome.
But here's the rationale behind the EnCC request: Village Code provides a section about acting building inspectors, which reads:
EnCC members have been granted only very limited access to these types of sites, because there isn't any way to legally require landowners or developers to agree to inspections to make sure that all the mitigations which were agreed to are also adhered to. The building inspector does get to inspect these sites.
The code provides for such an appointment in the case of the building inspector's "inability to act for any reason," and I can see two very obvious reasons why one of the two building inspectors in the Village's budget may not be able to act. For one of them, he or she has not yet been hired, and so is unable to act. For the other, Kathy Moniz, she's trying to do the job of two people. She's absolutely going to have to make very hard decisions about priortizing her work. She can never, ever be two places at once. Through no fault of her own, I am certain that there are times when Kathy Moniz is simply unable to act.
Removing site inspections from Kathy's plate would permit her to focus on things that are more likely to imperil people's lives, like overcrowded rentals and gas leaks in restaurants. I like the idea of her being able to do more of that stuff, if it comes up. Whichever EnCC member is selected and trained for the position, they would already start out with amply knowledge about the environmental aspects of site development. It's obvious that the budgeted $44,986.50 isn't enough to attract the right candidate, and that number isn't going to change soon. Set aside that money to sweeten the pot when you post the job next year, and let a dedicated EnCC member do what he or she wants to do anyway in the meantime.
If anyone knows when this is going to be on the agenda for the Village Board, I would definitely speak at the public hearing in support of this idea, if it comes to that.
I think that most of what Terry does comes from good intentions, but suffers from a classic case of don'tknowhowtoshowmyworkitis, which is all too common among teachers. In fact, it's the teacher's "shoemaker's children" syndrome.
But here's the rationale behind the EnCC request: Village Code provides a section about acting building inspectors, which reads:
The rationale behind appointing an EnCC member is thus: the Village is in need of a Building Inspector II, for which there is budgeted $44,986.50. At least three people have been interviewed, and none have been hired. By appointing a member of the EnCC to act as a building inspector, the Village would be able to take a significant chunk of work away from the understaffed building department, allowing Kathy Moniz to focus on other equally important areas. The EnCC already has an interest in enforcing all of the requirements agreed to in the site plan by the developer, and building inspector status would require that individual to do what members of the EnCC are rarely allowed to do: inspect active construction sites for violations.
§ 86-4. Acting Building Inspector.
In the absence of the Building Inspector, or in the case of his inability to act for any reason, the Mayor shall have the power, with the consent of the Board of Trustees to designate a person to act on his behalf and to exercise all of the powers conferred upon him by this chapter.
EnCC members have been granted only very limited access to these types of sites, because there isn't any way to legally require landowners or developers to agree to inspections to make sure that all the mitigations which were agreed to are also adhered to. The building inspector does get to inspect these sites.
The code provides for such an appointment in the case of the building inspector's "inability to act for any reason," and I can see two very obvious reasons why one of the two building inspectors in the Village's budget may not be able to act. For one of them, he or she has not yet been hired, and so is unable to act. For the other, Kathy Moniz, she's trying to do the job of two people. She's absolutely going to have to make very hard decisions about priortizing her work. She can never, ever be two places at once. Through no fault of her own, I am certain that there are times when Kathy Moniz is simply unable to act.
Removing site inspections from Kathy's plate would permit her to focus on things that are more likely to imperil people's lives, like overcrowded rentals and gas leaks in restaurants. I like the idea of her being able to do more of that stuff, if it comes up. Whichever EnCC member is selected and trained for the position, they would already start out with amply knowledge about the environmental aspects of site development. It's obvious that the budgeted $44,986.50 isn't enough to attract the right candidate, and that number isn't going to change soon. Set aside that money to sweeten the pot when you post the job next year, and let a dedicated EnCC member do what he or she wants to do anyway in the meantime.
If anyone knows when this is going to be on the agenda for the Village Board, I would definitely speak at the public hearing in support of this idea, if it comes to that.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Village Board: new election results!
The recount is in, and the results are a bit different:
Patrick O'Donnell still has 98 votes,
Brian Kimbiz now has 95, and
Pete Healey stays at 94.
The village clerk told me that one of Brian's votes was due to a counting error (more than I would have predicted), and the other three were write-ins the local election inspectors ruled invalid but the County deem overruled them on. I suggested that for future elections, it might be instructive if the announced count includes the number of votes thus invalidated. She agreed it was a good idea, but I don't know if there's any bizarre law that would prevent them from doing so in the future.
Pete is within his rights to challenge the results, but I do not know his intentions.
Patrick O'Donnell still has 98 votes,
Brian Kimbiz now has 95, and
Pete Healey stays at 94.
The village clerk told me that one of Brian's votes was due to a counting error (more than I would have predicted), and the other three were write-ins the local election inspectors ruled invalid but the County deem overruled them on. I suggested that for future elections, it might be instructive if the announced count includes the number of votes thus invalidated. She agreed it was a good idea, but I don't know if there's any bizarre law that would prevent them from doing so in the future.
Pete is within his rights to challenge the results, but I do not know his intentions.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Village Board Results 2009
I tried to be fancy, and wanted to show a video of the results here, but my camera and computer are no longer getting along, so we'll do it the old-fashioned way.
Patrick O'Donnell: 98
Pete Healey: 94
Brian Kimbiz: 91
Jason West: 25
Brittany Turner: 7
A few stray votes here and there
All in all, a good race. I don't think anyone can complain about a stolen election (and yes, I really hate that kind of whining, even when my guy loses). Brian Kimbiz, whose petititons were invalidated because he didn't realize that he needed to be registered here in order to witness the signatures, got every vote he deserved regardless, so I don't think he could argue that he would have gotten three or four more if he'd taken the time to understand the rules. Jason West and Brittany Turner were offered up as last-minute write-ins and got a respectable number of votes, given that they were only being talked about for hours at best.
I don't buy the whole idea of a stolen election, but honestly, if you want someone to run for office, do you think you could ask them far enough in advance that they could run a campaign, if you really want them to win? Both were gracious enough to let me know that they were no opposed to being written in, but both candidates could have made a real showing if they had taken the time to do it right.
- Jason just got back in town and simply didn't have the time - he wasn't here for the petition period. But if he wants to re-enter local politics, I think a thoughtful campaign would do him much better. He is a politician, and each campaign he undertakes should be part of his larger strategy, whatever that may be. It was just too impulsive to offer his name up.
- Brittany caught a lot of flack for daring to run, last minute, for Town Council. This time, she's starting to look like the perennial write-in protest vote. Brittany is extremely knowledgeable about the local scene, but has never had the opportunity to express her views in a candidate forum. I think she's too intelligent to be tossed in the race at the last minute - let's see what she's got and actually vote on her stand on issues, not just for the fun of it.
I think some of the votes for write-in candidates may have been protest votes - people didn't like the names on the ballot and voted for someone they didn't actually believe would win. That, in my view, is a waste of the democratic process. If I had my way no candidates would be on the ballot and we would have to actually pay attention to know who to vote for, but I don't have my way very often. Some very talented people were written in and could probably have won, given the opportunity for a serious campaign. A lot of races in this town could be decided very differently if folks started thinking about them earlier than, oh, the day before the election.
Congratulations to the winners, and kudos to the incredibly respectable showings for the other candidates. Now go play nice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)