So, it comes to this

It's never a surprise when a new executive accuses her predecessor of screwing up -- Terry Dungan trashed Jason West, Toni Hokanson pointed the finger at Don Wilen, and so on -- so the accusations supervisor Zimet is leveling against her predecessor will only be noticed by those few who have an ax to grind against one or the other of these two women (or, in a few special cases, individuals who can't stand either of them).

Whether or not Hokanson did wrong, most ordinary citizens won't care much; outside of the wine-sipping political pundit class, people in New Paltz spend more time living in the present than obsessing over minutiae. And that's a shame, because it means someone is getting away with something.

It could be Hokanson, Zimet, or both. The way the budget never got to a public hearing is unconscionable, and at the time the blame game was between the supervisor and the rest of the town council. Either incompetence by the lame duck or political aggrandizement by the council members who were sticking around probably contributed.

Of course, Zimet is a savvy politician and knows that she needs to get ahead of a story or she'll be blamed for the town's financial woes. Is she exaggerating when she talks about what a pickle the town is in?

Truth is a funny thing. Towards the end of the article linked above is an account of two town employees damaging the roof of the police headquarters, and the town paying the landlord for the damage. Hokanson said the employees went up there on their own, and that building owner C2G (her employer, now and then) was paid $2,500. Zimet claims her predecessor ordered the town employees onto the roof, and that the payment for damage was $14,000.

So who were the employees? I'd like to just ask them if they went up there on their own or not. And can we see the check written to C2G, please? It's either going to be for one amount or another, right? Unless the artificially complex financial system of our town government precludes simply writing a check, of course.

To do: FOIL the above information to see what's what. Truth shouldn't be that tough to sort out. If it is, we've got a problem, Houston.

A view from the table

My second Republican caucus I got to sit at the table - and what a view it was!  Politics never gets boring in New Paltz.  I went in believing that my remarks as a candidate would be the most memorable part of the night to me, but the place really heated up, and it wasn't because the room was packed.

Although outnumbered by the Democrats in the room, the Republicans were mostly hesitant not to vote for one of their own.  Randall Leverette and Ray Lunati got the nod for Town Council over Jean Gallucci and Kevin Barry, both former Republicans who switched registration to Democrat because that's how non-thinking voters in this town usually vote.

The nomination of Peter Cordovano for supervisor came as a surprise to many, although more than one person told me that they believed it was orchestrated some time ago.  I thought Peter looked genuinely surprised, but the theory was that his nomination was made to protect Toni Hokanson.  Peter would win because Republicans prefer GOP candidates, and then after he declined the committee to fill vacancies would appoint Toni to the line.

I don't buy it.  Why?  Because if Peter is that convincing an actor (he really seemed stunned), he would not have waffled when he was asked if running and serving would have an impact on his law practice.  That waffling was honest, and I'm sure it cost him at least the one vote he fell short.  If this had been rehearsed, he would have acted shocked, then recover, and speak with confidence when he accepted instead of saying, "I think I'll do it."

It may well be that Peter would have decided running on short notice was foolhardy, and that the committee (of which he was a member, as well as chairman of the caucus, before his nomination) would have selected Toni.  Maybe Diane Lucchesi even had that in mind, although she said she nominated him out of a desire for a Republican candidate for the job.  But I don't believe he was in on it.

Politics?  Sure.  Conspiracy?  Bah!

Democrats fire their engines

The race for town supervisor is starting to shape up for registered Democrats in New Paltz.  Mid-Hudson News reports that the New Paltz Democratic caucus will take place August 23.  In the past it's been held at the high school, so I'm guessing they'll try for that location again.

Once again, the local Democratic party committee is apparently opting not to back the party member who is already in office.  In the spirit of "what's old is what's new," they will be supporting former supervisor and current county legislator Susan Zimet for the job over incumbent Toni Hokanson.

I don't know who else will be trying to get the party nod, but here's a tip:  be prepared to bring a couple hundred of your registered Democratic friends to secure any nomination from the party.  You can be sure that both Zimet and Hokanson will.

My Republican Dilemma

I joined the Republican party a couple of years ago. I wasn't satisfied with my previous registration, largely due to my own ignorance about that party's positions, and I decided to start shopping around for one that fit me better.  I don't subscribe to the idea that political parties are inherited on faith like religions (okay, I don't subscribe to that idea for religions, either), but I opted to join the party of my parents to make an informed decision.  The fact that Republicans have a reputation for villainy also factored in, because whenever it becomes socially acceptable to bash a group, I want to know more.

So last year I went to the New Paltz Republican caucus for the first time, and it was suggested that I nominate Mike Nielson for Highway Superintendent.  He didn't take the line, but his actions since would make any fiscal conservative proud, especially considering that one longtime member told me afterwards, "Let's see if your boy Nielson can do the work with his full-time job in Kingston."  It was certainly a splashy way to enter into party politics.

Nevertheless, I regret doing it, and I won't do it again.

As I told Nielson recently, if we're going to have party politics, let's have party politics.  Although my nomination failed, at least two registered Democrats ran on the Republican line for town positions last year.  I don't think that's right.

There are good reasons for a candidate to want his or her name on more than one line.  And with the timing of local caucuses - this year both are expected to be in August - it makes sense to try for as many as possible, to avoid that awkward feeling when your own party gives the nod to someone else.  It's legal and it's appropriate.

It also undermines democracy.

In college, I made it a habit of running for the main leadership role of a club I belonged to every year.  I never wanted the position, but it bothered me that only one candidate was willing to step up. That's not democracy by any measure I understand, even if it works in countries like China and Russia.  Democracy is about choice, and not just the choice of which line to vote for Toni Hokanson on.

I'm a thinking voter, and I do my best to choose a candidate based on qualifications.  I've never voted a party line in my life.  Many people do vote their party line, though, and don't care about choices, because they only see their preferred row.  These folks are also done a disservice, because in their ignorance they can cast a vote for someone who isn't a member of their own party.

So my dilemma is that there are some good candidates in this town who I may vote for in November, but whom I won't be supporting come the caucus because they belong to another party, and in my mind belong on another line.  But New Paltz is a town virtually run by a cabal which excludes not only Republicans, but many Democrats and virtually all members of other parties.

In short, there's no qualified Republicans willing to step up.  No one willing to help me, to help us have a choice.

To curtail any suggestions to the contrary, I have a career I love which requires me to be out of town when most local meetings are held.  That alone makes me an inappropriate candidate for any local elected office, so I can't step up and put my money where my mouth is.

I'd like to shake the trees, though, and help find some willing citizens to take a stab at civic duty.  New Paltz has too long been bereft of choice on Election Day, and I for one would very much like to help solve that problem at the Republican caucus by casting a vote for a GOP candidate or two.

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.

The election that Pete Healey didn't win

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 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.

What's next, rubber bullets?

I don't like tasers and I don't believe they have any business in New Paltz.  I told Toni Hokanson that I think approving the use of even one of these devices by our police is her Hurricane Katrina - and that her vote may have been different if she weren't coming off an unopposed election.

I volunteered to be tased to prove a point - that our police and government officials wouldn't use this device on an ordinary citizen in a demonstration for liability reasons, any more than they would demonstrate how to stop someone with a gun.  I've had friends in the law enforcement community, and other trained in a variety of martial arts, demonstrate any number of disabling techniques on me safely, but guns and tasers can't be demonstrated safely.  My offer was ignored because the Town Council understands that they couldn't have agreed without making community taser opposition more visible.

Through a variety of lively debates I've explored this issue with people in law enforcement, who generally support their use because it minimizes danger to the officers.  I'm all for keeping our cops alive and well - they keep graffiti off my house, muggers away from my person and generally exist to make sure we treat each other with some level of respect, even if we don't want to that day.

What concerns me was confirmed in the Phillies taser attack - a rowdy fan was running around the field and got tased for being an idiot.  In the past, this type of fan has been wrestled to the ground and arrested.  According to the story, "the Police Department's internal affairs unit would open an investigation to determine if the firing 'was proper use of the equipment.'"

Good for them - because it wasn't.  The only reason a taser was used in this case is because the cop had one.  No indication that the officer would have been in danger, just an indication that it was just too difficult to chase after the punk.  The taser, once equipped, is a very easy piece of technology to use.

I'm amazed that we spend so much time debating relatively minor issues like who's smoking where and how noisy they are when doing it, while blithely letting our police get armed with a device that has been documented in its use for torture and can also be fatal.  Those college kids who are so noisy will be quieter if they're twitching on the ground, I'm sure; likewise the middle schoolers will think twice about sneaking a taste of a hookah if they know what the consequences may be.  I'm not saying that any of our individual officers are likely to use this device in an intentionally harmful way, but in the heat of the moment it sure is an easy solution to reach for.

Police Chief Snyder is proud of his new black-and-white police cruisers, because of the "old time" feel they have.  They evoke feelings of community policing, which he claims to support.  I'm not sure how well tasers fit in with friendly officered fellows who put a scare into troublemakers and make sure runaways make it home safely, but they definitely fit with our police force's paramilitary-style uniforms and AR-15 rifles.

I guess it depends on what kind of community you think you're policing.  If you believe that New Paltz is not a community that needs tasing, join the Facebook group or just stand up and say something.

A Pool and Playground for Everyone

For quite a few years now our town pool, Moriello, has been an issue of debate and contention. So much so that after awhile many of us get so sick of talking about it we throw up our hands in frustration and refuse to talk about it. The overpriced, shabby bathhouse took years to build. Many people take issue with the fact that the pool is not open to the public till noon. But those posts are for another day (or never).Today, I want to write about a possible solution to the playground problem.

From Memorial Day to Labor Day, the playground at Moriello is only open to pool members or those that pay a daily fee. This is problematic for people who believe all town residents should have open access irrespective of pool usage, in particular, many of the private donors who contributed funds towards the building of the playground.

In order to provide an equitable solution, I propose we explore the possibility of funding the pool through the tax levy instead of membership and user fees. So, the key question is: What would the added cost be to taxpayers if we eliminated memberships and user fees for town residents at the pool and spread the tax burden to all taxpayers so that everybody could be let in?

I asked Toni Hokanson and here are some preliminary numbers, her words: if the estimated pool revenue is put back into the budget to be generated by taxes then a $245,000 house would pay an additional $16; a $500,000 house, $33; and a $1 million dollar house, $66.

So, these figures seem reasonable to me, would allow access to all town residents to the playground regardless of their desire to swim, and would allow for many people who cannot afford a membership now to be able to use the pool all season long. (A family membership this year costs $150.) However, there are concerns that this system would increase usage so much so that maximum capacity would be reached too often and people might be turned away.

So, I have requested this discussion item be put on the agenda for the 7/23 Town Board meeting and for the following information to be made available for the discussion (perhaps ambitious to get by then – I made this request yesterday – but what they could get by 7/23 should be enough to start the conversation):

* Revenue generated by memberships and day rates paid by town residents for the last 5 years
* (Confirmed) Estimated increase in tax rates if these revenues were collected as part of the tax levy and not user memberships and fees
* Pool usage figures for the last 5 years: daily head counts, average daily head count
* Pool usage figures (above) broken down by members/residents paying fees/non-residents paying fees and adults/kids
* Dates in the past 5 years when the pool exceeded max capacity
* Documentation on how max capacity is computed (how do they compute that anyway since people only sign in and not out?)
* Projected population figures for the town for the next 5 years

I passed this idea by my fellow Gadfly Terence, and here are his thoughts:

Generally, I support this notion and believe it to be affordable, but some thoughts to consider:
* $16 is not very much, but that same reasoning could easily be applied to any number of excellent projects. It doesn't take much for collective pittances to become a pit of taxation that isn't very affordable. As long as we're bound to the medieval system of taxing land instead of wealth, we must approach any increase, no matter how small, with the big picture in mind.
* We could probably fund this easily by simply making the police stop buying gas hogs and put them back into cars like the rest of us. Crime fighting cars to be sure, but ones that get 40 MPG minimum would be nice.
* The plastic pool house continues to be a problem, but it could cut either way:
- It barely increased restroom capacity and is the reason why the playground and barbecues must be accessed only through the pool, we're told (although removing the fence around the playground wouldn't increase liability beyond what Hasbrouck Park now faces, so I doubt that argument).
- Because it's so substandard, it may just keep people away, encouraging them to go to the county's pool, which has a building made of permanent materials instead of Lego.
* Plenty of people aren't paying for the pool now, so the figures aren't remotely accurate. All one has to do is sign in on the member list to gain access, and this is the way that many kids (and probably some adults) get in a swim. Rather than cracking down on the offenders, I would think that moving to taxation is a way to get the necessary funding without punishing overheated poor people.
* Kids are much less likely to carry wallets with ID, and it's important to make access easy for everyone. Our current, and ineffective, gate system would work quite well if residents didn't have to pay. The few non-residents who use our pool in favor of the county's would actually be a much lower number than the percentage of non-payers we currently enjoy.

Thoughts? Please comment here… and come to the Town Board meeting on the 23rd.

kt Tobin Flusser and Terence Ward

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

Why hire a special prosecutor?

On the request of Justice Jonathan Katz, the Town Council is tonight interviewing candidates for a new special prosecutor position. I sent this email to the Council today.

I am opposed to the town hiring a special prosecutor.

The role of any government is to provide those services that cannot or will not be fairly made available through other means, including security, planning, and education. Governments tax their constituents in order to have the necessary resources to perform these functions.

When I asked the Supervisor about the special prosecutor, she told me that many other area municipalities have them, and that it's been generating a lot of revenue for them. This is the wrong answer.

If a government wishes to tax its citizens, it must do so in a transparent and equitable fashion that allows for full participation by the citizenry. The Supervisor's response makes it clear that she wishes to sidestep traditional revenue channels in an election year. It was not her stated intention to reduce crime or increase the responsiveness of the justice system; she wishes to raise money for the Town.

I submit that the only moral way to raise money is through the transparent budgeting process. This would include, for example, posting the full proposed budget on the town web site, which should be easy enough to do given that the site was designed specifically to make it possible to update content quickly.

If the Town wishes to become more just, may I suggest that in addition to hiring a special prosecutor, that it hire a special public defender? The one assigned by the County is overworked, unfamiliar with cases, and simply unable to adequately represent his clients due to the workload placed upon him. Such a new position would show that the Town Council is interested in justice, not secret revenue-generating schemes.

As you interview candidates for the special prosecutor position today, consider why you were elected. If you believe that New Paltz desires a straightforward government that does not seek to modify behavior or balance budgets through financial tricks, then please think twice about hiring a special prosecutor.

I tire of governments finding sneaky ways to balance budgets, be it like this or with parking meters, fees, or anything else that really amounts to modifying behavior via money. Taxes in New Paltz are high, but my problem is more that the true tax rate is well obfuscated by tactics such as these.

TnT Saga (or: Et tu, Toni and Terry?)

I've really been doing my best to learn about the lawsuit.  I've talked to the mayor and supervisor, waded through various comptroller's opinions, been shown laws and budgets, and I've even been given some competing history lessons.  Finally, I consulted Guy Visk's Magic 8-Ball.  I wasn't happy with the results.

Let me try to get my head around the two positions.  I've gotten some pretty wordy explanations that I will try to summarize, and I'm confident that any mistakes I make will be quickly and politely corrected.

What is agreed upon by all is that Town taxes are divided into two parts:  stuff all residents pay for (the A fund) and stuff that only people not in the Village pay for (the B fund).  The B fund is for things that the Village takes care of on its own, and taxes Village residents for directly.  The rescue squad contract with the town was, up until some point during Don Wilen's adminstration, a single agreement with the Town and charged to the A fund - everybody paid their share because everybody could need these guys.  During Wilen's tenure, the contract was split in two, each municipality paying its own share.  The Town's contract was charged to the B fund.  Toni Hokanson placed those charges in the A fund.

Terry:  The Town's contract for ambulance services specifically states that it is for Town residents that do not live within the limits of the Village.  This means that Village residents are not only paying for their ambulance services directly, they're also paying roughly 25% of the Town's contract, as well.  This is not okay.

Toni:  The contract was placed back in the A fund because the New York State Comptroller indicated that it's the only legal place to put it.  The clause in the contract limiting service to residents outside the village is illegal, because the Comptroller said that services are provided on a town-wide basis.  Further, the Comptroller said that if a village in these circumstances wanted its own contract, it needs to be one that provides additional services beyond what Village residents would already get based on the Town contract.  The Village contract is actually the problem.

Terry:  The Comptroller's opinion doesn't actually say that services are automatically provided town-wide, only that it assumes that they are.  That's a different story.  The Town's contract is binding, and the Village is paying more than it should.

Toni:  The reason the contracts were split was because the Village residents were paying artificially low rates.  The contract is based upon a formula deriving from assessments - Village residents pay a portion based on their portion of the Town's assessed property values (right now about 24%).  When there was one joint contract, the Village paid that portion, plus an additional amount to reflect the fact that about half of all ambulance calls are within Village limits.  This extra amount was reflected in Village taxes even then.  The two contracts were apparently written to simplify this process, but the Town's portion still should be in the A fund, as the Comptroller indicates, so that everyone is paying for the level of service being received.

So does the Town's contract make some sort of de facto ambulance district, like I think Terry is claiming, or does it just include a mistaken line that is misleading to those uninitiated into the complexities of Town budgeting, which is the sense I got from Toni?  And what about that Magic 8-Ball?  I asked it, "Will this be able to be resolved without going to court?

Guy's 8-Ball is pretty old, and it's got all manner of air bubbles in it that sometimes don't let you get an answer for a couple of tries.  When I did get one I could read, though, it said, "My answer is no."

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.

Tit for Tat: Terry vs. Toni in That Paper

I've spoken to the mayor, I've read the articles and the letter wars between supervisor and mayor, and I've seen some of the documents in question.  I have some follow-up questions into them both, but based on what I've seen so far, I think the supervisor's rationale doesn't quite fit the particulars of this case.

In her letter to TP (or That Paper, as Mr. McPhillips likes to call it), the supervisor quotes the entirety of the comptoller's opinion about how to assess ambulance charges when you've got a village within a town, and they each sign their own contracts with the same ambulance company.  The comptroller felt that, since the town contract included everything in its borders, that the village residents really were getting the benefit of that, over and above the level of service they were getting from their own contract with the same ambulance company.  (The opinion is very clear that it applies only in cases where the contracts are with the same company.)  Because they were getting that extra level of service, a town could go ahead and put the ambulance charge in the "A" fund that comes from the taxes paid by all town residents - including the ones that live in the village.

Follow so far?  The comptroller thinks that the same exact ambulance volunteers that are on call at any given time would somehow replicate themselves should an emergency happen in the village, so the village residents should pay twice:  once for the town-hired clone, and once for the village-hired clone.

Granted that the opinion is specious at best and bizarre to the core, it is in fact a legitimate basis upon which to base a defense.  If the town ended up losing under those circumstances, it would really be the comptroller's opinion being reversed by a court of law, not an error in judgment.  However, I don't think that this opinion applies to New Paltz.

I looked at a copy of the town's ambulance contract, and it's pretty clear that services are being engaged for the town, excluding anything within the village boundaries.  The mayor is claiming that this contract is specific enough that there's no way any resident of the village could be benefiting from it, at least not while they're at home.  He believes that the comptroller's opinion just doesn't apply in this case.

What's going on at SUNY?

Ira Margolis has been a tireless advocate for opening all meetings by local government to the public - even those that aren't covered by the letter of the Open Meetings Law, like the stuff that happens on campus.  SUNY New Paltz is nestled in the village, but thanks to state law is immune to local public scrutiny.  As I mentioned to Toni Hokanson not long ago, it would probably take lobbying by town supervisors and mayors in all SUNY towns to get the laws to be changed so that the SUNY system was required to participate as members of those communities, instead of the monolithic and inpenetrable powers they have become.  Like any other large company, SUNY should have to interact with local authorities and community members, particularly since it happens to be immune to our medieval taxation system.

SUNY news that comes to me is usually in the form of rumor, innuendo, and Facebook chatter.  Here are some recent tidbits:

• The Students for Sustainable Agriculture are expecting their garden to be bulldozed this summer, when they're mostly out of town.  This is an organic garden that has been cultivated since 2005 in keeping with the club's mission to get the college to support local agriculture.
• The college is planning to kill its resident geese this summer (it's a great time to "do nefarious deeds" according to Rachel Lagodka).  Canada geese enjoy the lawns and open spaces of the campus, and alternatives that have been proposed, such as plantings that would discourage them from landing, have been passed on.
• The proposed expansion of the college southwards may end up being in the Village after all - I've heard they would like to hook up to our water and sewer, which would require annexation.  Our backwards system of taxing land will influence how this pans out, because the development would be taxable for the first forty years before returning the the taxless vacuum of state-owned land.

I've sent President Poskanzer an email asking for comment on the garden issue specifically - it's the one that I have the most credible information about.  I'm very curious to see if he decides it's better PR to reply or to ignore gadflies as insignificant pests.

The Claims that Bind

There's been a fair amount of discussion about the Village suing the Town, because Terry Dungan has found what looks like about $75,000 in taxes to Village residents that the Town shouldn't have charged us.  The notice of claim is available at Town Hall or that link, and has all the relevant details.

Of course it's not the Village suing, it's a number of residents (not including, as some have noted, His Honor).  I wonder how many of those residents asked who would be paying to prosecute this suit, or to defend against it?  Because whether or not they're right, once it's on, attorneys get involved, and you can be sure that the Town is going to have an attorney answer this notice of claim . . . and they'll charge it to the "A" fund that we all pay.

Now I understand that the situation is complex - that's why Terry needed to have "lawsuit parties" where he would spend an hour or so explaining it to a group of people before asking if they wanted to sign on or not.  But in the clusterf*ck that is one government within another, does it occur to anybody on that notice that the only people that are going to pay to litigate or settle this mess is us?  This is financial masturbation, plain and simple.

How about the two boards sit down and talk it out?  Figure out a solution - and leave your damned egos at home, thanks.  I understand that some of your are steamed about being sued, and some of you are irked about being swindled, but every person in New Paltz will be paying to fix what was likely a mistake.

Terry Dungan is known for not telling his own Board anything, and I think he probably didn't make a real effort to work with the Town - or if he did, no one knew what he meant.  He's smart, but not a real communicator.  Toni Hokanson will defend the Town's interest fiercely, and despite her protests will forget that the Village is part of the Town.  We can't afford to have Terry push forward with a suit that's premature, nor can we afford for Toni not to work out a solution that benefits the citizens.  I don't really give a damn which government gets the money in the end, as long as it doesn't end up in my tax bill.

Let's watch how this unfolds carefully.  If, by the next election, it's not settled with NO cost to the taxpayers, can we agree to vote out of office anyone who comes up for election?  And to continue on that route until all ten have been replaced?  This is the reason why unification needs to happen:  I don't want them fighting over how much of my money they get to piddle away hating each other.  I know that not every sitting Board and Council member is responsible for this debacle, but we need to send a message that they will all be held accountable if this is not ended now.  I'm sure that cooler heads will prevail if it's clear that people in New Paltz are serious.  It's an embarassment, an unnecessary expense, and should have been avoided by working it out like adults.  Okay, mature adults.

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.

Village Spending Freeze: End to Innovation?

It's a common pattern that is sad to watch: great strides toward more sustainable and environmentally-friendly practices are made during economic boom times, only to be all-but-undone when municipalities start cutting their budgets and freezing spending. Is that the fate for New Paltz Village?

Like every level of government, the Village of New Paltz is struggling with the realities of the current economy. Terry Dungan initiated a controversial spending freeze last month, and there can be no doubt that the fiscal crisis is at the root over bickering about the solar panels on Village Hall. It's funny how government officials act, isn't it? During boom times they spend like nobody ever loses money and during a crisis they think that no spending is okay ever. The rest of us have to budget for good times and bad, but governments somehow are allowed to act surprised no matter what happens.

So for the Village, this surprise manifests in ways like spending freezes and fights with the Town to get more money. Since we apparently never think of saving money when the economy is good, can we think about how to use innovation to save a little money in the long term now that times are tough? Many environmentally sound practices, like the 2005 solar panel installation, cost a bit of cash up front but provide environmental and economic benefits down the line - they save us money in the long run. Does it make sense to spend money during a freeze to save money later? Probably - I for one have no faith that our elected officials will plan for a rainy day during the next boom time, so why not now when we're thinking about how difficult things are?

I was looking at various ways that roads can create energy, and honestly I think forward-thinking isn't nearly enough to finance a solar road network or anything close to it. However, the idea of speed bumps that power street lights is actually pretty cool - they're almost certainly cheaper than a road, we use or could use speed bumps in various locations, and I'm guessing that there's a grant out there somewhere that could help us finance these things.

The question is, can our mayor and our town supervisor play nice with each other for awhile and look into some serious changes, or would they prefer to continue defending their fiefdoms and use that as an excuse for not doing something exceptional with their jobs?

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.

Tale of Two Grants

There's a mad dash in New Paltz to grab some cash from a New York State grant fund aimed at helping local governments become more efficient. The money looks like it's going to survive Albany's deep budget cuts, and two different applications are vying for approval by the two New Paltz governments. If our fearless leaders can weigh these proposals in an objective way, we'll probably get some money to look into a simpler New Paltz.

Despite all the budget cutting by the state, it looks like the 21st Century Demonstration Project is alive and well. David Paterson is looking at a lot of ways to cut costs, and he's serious about getting taxes down as part of his plans. I don't like Paterson's property tax plan very much, but this program takes a look at another way to cut costs: eliminate redundant services - the problems that arise from overlapping governments that occasionally don't communicate well.

These types of grants have popped up before, but this time there may be two different proposals jockeying for position. Terry and Toni each appear to be supporting one of the applications, and it's not clear if there is support for either one by both governments. I had a chance to talk with some of the principles, and I got a sense of what the two applications are looking to do.

Consolidation of Services is what Jonathan Wright and Terry Dungan want to study. Wright feels that a feasibility study that looks at different ways to share services throughout New Paltz still makes sense. He told me that he'd like the study to look at all options, from simply improving communication to a complete unification, and formulate the best plan for New Paltz from the study findings. If unification would create the most cost savings and strengthen the protection of the village core through more effective zoning, he would support that option; but he doesn't rule out that a full study might not point to a different solution altogether. And of course "unification" can mean a few different things: the village could be dissolved, the village could expand to encompass the entire town, the entire process could be determined by the outcome of an Othello game . . . who knows? Jonathan tells me that both boards are poised to pass the necessary resolutions supporting the application by their joint meeting on January 21.

However, not everyone thinks more study is necessary. That's why there is also a proposal to create a
Townwide Village, as suggested by Pete Healey and Toni Hokanson. Healey's vision for this grant money is to use it to formulate a plan of action for unification of all government services under the village, because villages are not subject to the highly restrictive New York State Town Law. He would use the grant to work out the exact plan of turning two governments into one, figuring out how much it would cost and how long it would take. Healey reasons that unification will need a referendum, so it makes sense to obtain a grant to find out what unifying would actually cost, and actually save. It's kind of like studying all the options, except Pete would like to drill down on the one that he thinks makes the most sense and not focus the grant money elsewhere. He tells me that Toni is helping to write this application, and that he feels it's the most cohesive proposal.

Now this looks like it's going to be a terribly dramatic fight to the finish, and if this were a newspaper article I'd probably be trying to gear up the drama - anything to help you make it to the dry, tedious finish. After all, this two applications are both going after the same money, and even though these grants are non-competitive, it's pretty unlikely the state would give us the money for both projects. "s#it or get off the pot," they'd say. Either one isn't going anywhere if it can't garner the support of a majority of each of our governments. So what are the chances of them both getting the green light?

I hope the chances are pretty good. I'd like to see both applications get submitted. I don't expect us to get the money twice, but if we have two proposals I think it will improve our chances that they'll like at least one of them. Either way, it's free money. If we get the Wright-Dungan plan, we'll look at all the options, figure out the best way to go and, if it's necessary, we'll have a referendum. However, if the state likes the Healey-Hokanson option, we'll lay out a unification plan and bring it to referendum. If we get a referendum it will pass if and only if the plan saves people money and preserves the community character, a tough bar to pass. Why not give ourselves the best chance possible to use free money to make the best possible plan for everybody?