NPT drags Mullergate into the light of day

I've been so preoccupied by trying to give myself a heart attack these past few days that I haven't had a chance to comment on recent developments (pun intentional) in the Mullergate affair.

In one of the many New Paltz Times articles which are never made available online, Erin Quinn dug deeply into the question of what happened to Peter Muller's Town Planning Board membership.  She calls Deputy Supervisor Jane Ann Williams on the carpet for first confirming in writing that he wasn't reappointed, and then backpedaling when Rachel Lagodka asked about it at the joint Town/Village meeting.  Williams' position in writing was that "there is a question as to whether or not" Muller filed his training hours.  Toni Hokanson echoed her passively-voiced language.

Here's an idea:  if you want Peter on the board, reappoint him.  If you think the man, who spent much of last year recovering from hip replacement, didn't file the little document indicating his training, give him a call.  Fill out the damned form yourself and drive it to his house for his signature.

Claims that nobody knew why Peter's name came off the town website shouldn't be mystifying.  Paul Brown sent Peter a letter telling him he hadn't been reappointed, and then likely directed the Planning Board secretary to remove his name.  Paul Brown is amazingly efficient and organized.  If he wrote a letter to Peter, he removed the name.  And if Paul Brown removed Peter Muller's name, it was because he wasn't reappointed - Mr. Brown's shortcomings do not include inattention to detail.

There was an attempt to publicly reappoint him that was thwarted by a parliamentary move.  Jeff Logan got his first taste of how government really works when he seconded Kitty Brown's motion but couldn't vote on it because the rest of the board wanted to skulk into executive session to lick their wounds.

The Town Board can appoint whomever they please to the Planning Board, within some limits.  Yes, I would prefer Peter to some other person, but my problem here is with the back room politics.  Have an open vote, and be ready to justify your actions.  This is a democracy, and the people that you represent have the right to know what you're doing and why.  The very fact that investigative reporting caused Peter's documented removal from the Board and the web site to mysteriously undo itself is evidence of politicians that don't believe in open government.  

Three out of five failed this test in honesty and forthrightness.  There have been so many midterm appointments (a technique used to allow the preferred candidate run as an incumbent) these past few years that I can't remember whose terms are up this year, but can we get some ethical people on the board to replace them, please?  

Paving the Way to a New Planning Board

So is the Town Board intending on removing each and every environmentalist from the Planning Board?  If not, I think they need to take some time to prove otherwise.

Peter Muller was not reappointed to the Planning Board because he didn't fulfill the training requirements - four hours per year are needed to keep abreast of planning issues.  I find that interesting, mostly because it's not true.  I sat at the table with Peter during at least two, if not three, Biodiversity Assessment Training sessions given by Hudsonia.  Prior to beginning that ten-month project, Rachel Lagodka and David Jakim of the village ENCC asked the Town Planning Board to rule that those sessions would fulfill the training requirement, and we did.

Peter had to drop out of the project for some minor thing . . . oh, right, he had hip replacement surgery.  It's very likely that he failed to fill out the form confirming that he received sufficient training.  Are we so bureaucratic that we can't just ask the man?  I'm sure he would have filled out his paperwork.  Maybe Jeff Logan is still bitter about his write-in campaign and figures everyone needs to be held to an unyielding standard?  I hope not.

At the joint meeting of the town and village boards last night Rachel Lagodka asked about Peter, and Jane Ann Williams said that nothing had been decided yet.  Nothing decided?  Then why was Peter's name removed from the Planning Board member list?  Please don't insult my intelligence by saying that was an administrative error; Ken Wishnick is still listed as liaison so it's not like the page is updated aggressively.

I think this is a trend because of the way I was asked to give up my own seat.  Sure, I was honored when Terry Dungan asked me to consider moving to the village's planning board, but my concerns about the Crossroads project held me back.  It wasn't until Toni Hokanson asked me to switch that I decided to do so, because I was impressed at her willingness to give up a member to the village when it's really tough to find people willing to serve.  When I saw how quickly I was replaced with an obviously pro-development member I realized that my idealism was used against me, and I told Toni so.  I expect they'll find someone even worse to replace Peter.

Jonathan Wright's term is up next.  What will the reason be to get rid of this articulate and intelligent advocate of smart growth and green development principles?  Will they be willing to act like adults and talk about it in an open meeting, or will they again hide behind the closed doors of an executive session to make these decisions?

Town Board, consider yourself on notice.  I don't trust your motives.  I don't believe your words.  I don't think you feel you need to represent the community because all you have to do is take the Democratic caucus to guarantee reelection.

If that's the way you want it, fine.  I know that there are intelligent and talented people who care about this community.  If you want a fight at the caucus, you can have one.  I don't want any of the five of you to think for one second that your jobs are guaranteed, and if you continue to pull stunts like these I will work tirelessly to find the people to unseat you.

One Party Rule Always Stinks

I've never met Corinne Nyquist, but I really am grateful for all that she's done for New Paltz. By not getting Jeff Logan's paperwork submitted timely, she has opened the door to a bona fide democratic election for Town Council, by not allowing a candidate to run on the Democratic line.

Understand, I have no problem with Democrats, Republicans, or members of any other party in principle. As my father used to say, "There isn't a Democrat or Republican way to collect the garbage." However, New Paltz is one of many communities that is stuck with a de facto single party system, and that doesn't encourage accountability. This year, voters will have to actually think about whom to select. It's really exciting.

But I would like to see that happen in every election, and it ain't gonna happen without some changes. Right now, most people in New Paltz vote for a Democrat, period. How can we get the voters in this community to vote for a person instead of a party? Actually, it's pretty easy.

Council districts.

Whenever a municipal government is broken down so that each member of the legislative body is elected from a specific district, it makes them far more accountable. People remember that a call to Kitty Brown got the streets plowed, or that Jane Ann Williams helped them out with a property tax question. It becomes personal, so the voters start choosing by personality.

Here's an example: Nassau County was one of the most efficient Republican machines in the country. Just as Ulster hasn't had an executive, Nassau didn't have a legislature - in that county's case, decisions were made by a Board of Supervisors, comprised of all the town supervisors that governed with a strange, weighted voting system. A court case required a legislature be created, so of course the districts were carefully constructed to guarantee the Republicans would stay in power forevermore.

It worked that way for the first term, but after that, the Democrats took the majority! Why? Because people started voting for or against the neighbor in office, not for or against the party. It just so happened that more Democrats were popular in that Republican county.

I worked on a referendum campaign for council districts in another town, back when I needed money more than I disliked being involved in politics. The standard argument against districting is that it reduces representation, because at-large members represent the interests of all, but district representatives do not. I would expect that sort of weak argument to come up in New Paltz, because the folks who prefer mindless "democracy" are generally smart enough to see how districts don't support their agenda. However, such resistance may not be unilateral, since Toni Hokanson personally told me she would support such an initiative when we were chatting a month or two ago at Bacchus.

It would be easy enough to draw four districts and see what the makeup of the town council becomes. With intelligently drawn lines, the village would always have a clear voice in the town. The village could similarly benefit from this type of enhanced democracy. Imagine having a voice for students on the village board, all but guaranteed by the layout of the districts! I didn't care for either of the student candidates last time around, but I do think that students, like other population segments, need to be fairly spoken for.

I'll be sure to give a call to the winner of the town race soon to pitch the idea.