Police commission: needed?

Move to dissolve Town of New Paltz Police Commission sparks controversy | New Paltz Times

Is having a police commission, which is not very common, a good thing? My gut is "yes," but I agree that it doesn't work as well as it could. The commission is two broad areas of concern, as I recall:

1. fiscal issues such as the departmental budget and personnel promotions, and
2. personnel issues, like promotions and citizen complaints.

A side note here:  this is a recollection because I couldn't easily find it on the town web site.  I didn't see the link to the town code anywhere obvious, but that thing's search function is so horrible I would rather have the law quoted right on the police commission's portion of the town site.

Five volunteers aren't really able to do both of those jobs justice, and I think they're both critical to maintaining a thoroughly transparent and absolutely right-sized force.  

• Given the size of the budget, I think it's worth making sure that financial professionals, the kind that will probably never get elected and is willing to work for free, look over this immense spending plan.
• At the same time, having a group of people reviewing complaints makes sure that monitoring our protectors doesn't get lost in the wash of town business.

Jeff Logan says that "more government doesn't equal better government," and I imagine he disagrees with his father on the issue of consolidation, but I digress.  More government is a problem if it prevents things you want to encourage, or encourages things you want to prevent.  A citizen board reviewing complaints makes it easier and faster for a citizen to register one, and for the officer to have the matter resolved.  The fiscal oversight in no way slows down the town's budget process - the police commission found savings which weren't implemented because the budget wasn't passed on time.  More government in this case means better service for the same cost.  What's the down side?  The town council is reviewing a thoughtfully prepared budget?

I agree with Ira Margolis that the commission isn't perfect.  There's too much emphasis on money, at times, and not enough on the long-term consequences.  

• Jeff Logan called the donation of a new police dog "the gift which keeps on taking."  
• Our local police, like departments nationwide, have strong incentives to prioritize crimes which will generate income.  Specifically, they get to keep money and property seized in drug crimes, or some portion thereof.  It's the flip side of "running a government like a business:"  some crimes are literally worth more to the police than others.
• Every part-time officer we've hired has eventually become full-time.  Part-timers are hired because hey, they're so much cheaper because there's no benefits to pay.  Too bad it never stays that way.
• Giving SUNY security police status created another police force in the heart of our community, one which has no citizen oversight and heightens the sense that the college is apart from New Paltz.  Better to have them pay for the same police protection as the rest of us, just as they do for fire protection.

With the dual responsibilities the commission has, these kinds of decisions and events don't get the scrutiny they deserve.  Should we be mitigating for the external pressures on our police?  Do we consider the logical progression of our own decisions?

I'd rather see the commission stay.  The fact that they've annoyed our elected officials shows they're looking deeper than expected, and I like that.

Write On, New Paltz!

The other day while attending a seminar on small business marketing I got my first election pen of the season. I was surprised, because with the cold, rainy season we've been having, it just doesn't seem like it's late enough in the year to be handing out election pens already.

Climate change aside, I think pens as campaign tools are a very important symbol in New Paltz. We recently decided, if my count is correct, a third race with a write-in candidate winning, and that's pretty amazing. We know how to write in a candidate in New Paltz, and I think that it's the purest form of democracy. I think we should consider institutionalizing it.

Yes, I would like to propose that, instead of voting for a party slate, we just get rid of candidates on the ballot completely. Here's how it could work:

1. Town or village clerk publishes the requirements for the position. This is already available, but it's got to be easy to find on the town and village web sites, as well in the local newspapers.
2. Voting machines wouldn't have a single name listed.
3. Instructions for writing in a candidate would be posted in large boards outside, and small posters inside the booths.
4. Votes would be counted as always.
5. Votes for candidates found to be ineligible would be discarded as always.

So what's the benefit? I can see a couple.

1. Voters have to think before they vote.
2. They can't assume someone is qualified because of the line they're running on, because nobody's listed.
3. Candidates will have to really work to win a seat, like Jeff Logan did.

I understand that Jeff might not like this idea, but he was blindsided - the man should have had his party's nomination. In this plan, nominations don't particularly mean squat. I'm sure that the Democrats would campaign for their chosen candidate, and they may even have a leg up still, but it would be a real election. Anyone wanting to vote would have to actually pay attention if he or she wanted to make sure that his or her vote was for an eligible individual. Furthermore, it's possible that you may vote for someone who doesn't want the job, if you're just another mindless voter.

I can't wait to see the reasons people won't like this idea, because I predict that they will mostly be thinly-veiled suggestions that people aren't actually smart enough to vote without help. That's where the Founding Fathers went wrong with the Electoral College, and I challenge anyone to use the "stupidity clause" and put their name to it.

Of course, the pen I was given stopped writing almost immediately, which could mean that the candidate chose promotional products poorly, or it could be an ominous portent. We shall see.

Survey Says: Not New Paltz

The Town has posted the "Draft Public Input Element" as part of the Comprehensive Plan process here. Two points will be awarded to the first Gadfly reader who identifies kt's participant quote on page three.

Putting aside for the moment the merits of surveys in general, as promised, here is my analysis of the Town comprehensive survey results - in terms of whether or not the resulting sample is representative of Town Residents.

As I said in my previous post on this topic, "Done well, random sampling methods include contact with a small number of people, the results of which can represent the entire population under study. The answers obtained from a scientific probability survey are not just answers from those individuals who responded but more importantly, because of the design and methods by which the data is collected, can be used to generalize to the population as a whole. We want a methodology that ensures results are an estimate of what would have been obtained if all adults in the New Paltz were interviewed."

With that in mind, I compared the demography of the survey results with that of the Census. (Admittedly, somewhat old since the last Census was in 2000.) My analysis finds that:

As far as the number of adults in household and age categories(except for age 65+), the data is not comparable to Census. With respect to the presence of children in HH, those age 65+, and college (only) graduates, the survey is representative. However, there are some significantly underrepresented groups: Renters, Residents not in the labor force, Households earning less than $50,000 per year, and Residents with less than a college degree. Correspondingly, these group are overrepresented (which skews the results towards the views of these groups): Homeowners, Employed persons, Households earning more than $50,000 per year, and Residents with post-graduate degrees. Also worthy of note, since certain questions were absent from the survey, we have no comparison to actual population for Gender and Race/Ethnicity.

Based on this, my conclusion is that, whether you like the content of the survey or not is irrelevant, as the survey results are not representative of the population of the Town of New Paltz.

kt Tobin Flusser

Building Freeze Looms

Last night the Town Council voted 3-1 to move forward with an 18-month moratorium on subdivisions of four or more lots.  David Lewis was not present, and Toni Hokanson cast the dissenting vote.

• The vote shows that, at least sometimes, the Town Council doesn't blindly follow Toni's lead, as I've often seen written in That Paper's letters column.  It may happen, but it didn't happen last night.
• Toni has been consistent in her opposition to a moratorium before the comprehensive plan update is done - she feels that the time for one is afterwards, when the zoning code changes are tweaked.
• Kitty Brown was consistent in her position that this type of idea should really come from the Planning Board.
• Jonathan Wright, the gadfly and Planning Board member who has pushed for this for over two years, has been unable to get that body to recommend a moratorium.  He has always maintained that having the moratorium now is critical, because the zoning is broken and we should not be allowing any more bad subdivisions (read:  McMansions and strip malls) to be approved before we take a look at what types of development will really benefit the town, economically, culturally, and environmentally.
  
• Jeff Logan worked hard on getting this passed, and showed a real commitment to doing to research and work necessary to be on the Council.  In other words, he's now officially underpaid ;) .

The language must be reviewed by the Town Attorney before a public hearing date may be set.

Two weekends, two messy events

The past couple of weeks have been a whirlwind of activities in New Paltz, and I only got to go to some of them. However, I got a little time with some local politicians as part of the bargain.

New Paltz Clean Sweep
I don't remember what made me miss out on Clean Sweep last year, but I was delightfully surprised by the layout of food at St. Joseph's for the volunteers. I found Toni Hokanson sitting alone at a table designated for the Town Council (she told me about health issues that prevented two of them from showing up, and I later found out family obligations kept the other two away), and joined her along with Kraig Kallmeyer of SealTech Sealcoating.  We three scoured the area around Town Hall and Moriello Pool.  Our supervisor definitely is willing to work her butt off picking up litter, and that area is a real prize.  I pulled a tire out of the wetland north of the pool, and gave up on an moss-covered bumper (I would need two strong adults with waders, poison ivy resistance, and thick clothing to keep the brambles at bay to get that baby out).  Pretty sure I picked up poison ivy that day, because the stuff that runs rampant through my yard definitely couldn't be the culprit . . . 

New Paltz Regatta

I can't tell you a thing about the regatta, because my wife and I awoke that morning stricken by some horrible disease.  We were in bad enough shape to need medical attention, and FirstCare in Highland was the nearest place open on a Sunday.  They had a backlog, but nurse Jeff Logan took good care of us.  Turns out his grandfather built our house, and now that I'm no longer delirious I'm going to give his mother a call to learn more about its history.  No, we don't have swine flu (or any other), but we got tested even though the symptoms didn't match that well.  I wasn't so delirious that I felt that need to remind Jeff how he annoyed me last Election Day, but I give him credit - I don't think he would have done any less of a job caring for us even had I done so.  Looking back, and considering my own encounters with mindless school bureaucracy as I futilely tried to figure out what a member of HAC does, I'm sure district employees follow inane directions like "open the door despite the amount of heat it will waste for our taxpayers" because that's how the bureacracy trains them.  Our conversation showed me that he does think independently; anyone who's being sued by the chairman of his own party really has no choice.  (Corinne Nyquist, chair of the New Paltz Democratic Committee, signed on to Terry Dungan's village citizen lawsuit against the Town).

Village Elections

So today I'm healthy enough to vote in the village elections.  There are two official and the usual explosion of write-in candidates for the two open seats.  Please don't write me in - if you must write someone in, I would think Jason West is a better choice than the college kid.  I've read the petitions, and I know challenges can be used to intimidate, but his were so flawed I think he needs a little aging in order to be ready for an elected position.  I just found out Brittany Turner is being run as well, but apparently it's without her knowledge and I don't agree with that.  You could also vote for the candidates on the ballot, but please remember that these races are won by a handful of votes, so your vote really does count.

One Poll, a Good One, please

The town board is debating the best approach for integrating a community survey component into the process of developing our new town master plan. The town has hired a team of consultants to construct the updated plan in consultation with the public. Thus far, qualitative focus groups and a community forum have been held. The consultants are also planning to field a mail survey in order to include a quantitative, scientifically selected sample of the town populace.

Councilwoman Kitty Brown is concerned that the mail survey will not incorporate enough of the public and would like a companion survey to be published in the New Paltz Times. Councilman Jeff Logan and Supervisor Toni Hokanson were open to the idea and the board has decided , while not supportive, agreed to ask the consultants if this is feasible.

While I admire Kitty Brown’s desire to broaden inclusion, in this instance, as a rigid methodologist when it comes to survey research*, I have to advise the town to not take this approach. In order for the science of the mail survey to be sound, the first and only exposure to the questions needs to happen when people receive them in the mail. It needs to be an independent, stand alone document, one that is especially not embedded within a newspaper that is currently reporting on the issues it addresses. The intent of including a survey in the project was to provide a scientifically valid sample of the town residents and offering the survey via the newspaper diminishes the validity of the mail survey’s results.

That said, I also have some serious concerns about the mail survey methodology. Done well, random sampling methods include contact with a small number of people, the results of which can represent the entire population under study. The answers obtained from a scientific probability survey are not just answers from those individuals who responded but more importantly, because of the design and methods by which the data is collected, can be used to generalize to the population as a whole. We want a methodology that ensures results are an estimate of what would have been obtained if all adults in the New Paltz were interviewed.

Firms typically chose to use mail surveys over telephone surveys because of the significant difference in cost. (A sound telephone survey would cut into at least half the budget of this entire project.) But, the trade off for lower cost is that mail surveys have notoriously low response rates, making the case for representativeness a tough sell. The consultants estimate a return rate of 8% after mailing out the survey to 1000 randomly selected households. How do we know the responses of these 80 residents represent the views of all New Paltzians? We can’t know, the response rate is too low and the sample size too small to justify the science of random sampling. (Which btw, assumes 100% response rate, but lower rates have proven sufficient, just not that low). My advice is to mail out more surveys, possibly staggered in waves of 500 over time, in order to generate 300 interviews with a margin of error of +/- 6%.

Then what? Population parameters provided by the U.S. Census can be compared to the demographics of the survey sample to ensure representativeness. If it is close but not quite close enough, a statistical process called weighting can be employed, but this should only be done if guided by strict rules… in lay people’s terms, it should only “tweak” the data, not stretch the truth, so to speak. In the end, when we review the data, we must ask: do the demographics reflect our population, as we know New Paltz to be, based on census data? 82% white, 48% college educated, 54% homeowners, 28% households with children? If the composition of the resulting sample is similar to the make up of our community based on census data, we can be confident the survey yielded information that can be generalized to the entire population of New Paltz.

kt

* My M.S. degree is in Social Research and just last year, after eleven years, I left my job as Assistant Director at the Marist Institute for Public Opinion

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.

Candidate Without a Clue

Voting this morning was interesting, to say the least. It was my first time voting in a general election since I moved into the Village of New Paltz, so I wasn't entirely sure where my polling place was.

I cruised over to the High School where I've voted in years past, and I was surprised when I parked in the front of the building where I always had previously. Not one sign, not one poll worker to indicate where voting occurred; the front doors were locked and the stern warnings that visitors should report to the main office were unaltered. I watched several other confused voters go through the same process before I went around the back. I found out that I now vote in the Middle School, but seeing the poor organization was instructive.

The Middle School had a clear sign on the door that voters needed to enter, and I had no trouble finding my way. Writing in my choice for Town Council was not at all difficult. As I was leaving through the same door, I found it being held open by a gentleman who was speaking to someone I could not see. I assumed that he was simply being thoughtless; like most municipal buildings, the Middle School is being heated already, and his holding the door open was wasting energy. As I left, though, I saw that the unnamed man was speaking to write-in candidate Jeff Logan, who was busily tying the door open. The sign that guided me into the polling place, I noted, was now obscured by the position of the door itself.

I waited for Mr. Logan to finish his conversation. "Isn't the heat on in the building?" I asked him.

He considered. "Yes, it is," he replied. He didn't look entirely sure why I would ask.

"My tax dollars are paying for that heat, and propping the door open is wasteful. If you're running for government office, you should consider that," I replied.

"Yes," he agreed. He made no effort to untie the door.

I am pleased that I chose not to vote for Mr. Logan, who has been running solely on the length of his residency. However, part of me hopes he wins. After all, it's much easier to be a gadfly if the politicians make it clear that they don't give a damn about their constituents.

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.