How Occupy fell short

This post isn't about the Constitution.  I want to make that perfectly clear.  There are people in New Paltz who believe so dearly in the piece of the truth that they have in their hearts and minds, that no other pieces of truth could possibly exist.

This post is about another piece of truth regarding Occupy New Paltz.  It's the truth about perception and outreach.

Occupy is a different kind of protest.  Back when protesters were fighting against the Vietnam conflict (it wasn't a war; Congress illegally gave up the requirement of declaring war with the War Powers Act), it was easy to understand.  Agree or disagree, everyone knew that the hippies were protesting the fighting.

Our problems are more complex now.  Occupy realized that, and wouldn't simply fire off a few bullet points for the media.  It's an inclusive process that's consensus-based, and completely puzzling to anyone who hasn't made decisions that way.

But there have always been parts of the Occupation were clear.  It started on Wall Street, and spread to other places of power; centers of government and finance were targeted.  "Occupation" is a word that aptly describes how this protest has targeted specific physical locations because of their symbolic meaning.  You might not be clear what Occupy is protesting exactly, but the locations send an unmistakable message.

Again, whether you agree with that message or not, it's there.

So then the routing of the Occupations began.  Nationwide, they were ousted from the parks and the public spaces.  When Occupy Poughkeepsie was shut down, some Occupiers came to New Paltz, where village officials initially opened their arms.

I heard that there was some kind of action at a local bank, and I caught glimpses of a couple of signs in Hasbrouck Park, but I was puzzled by the choice.  What in New Paltz can represent the problems with American society that has left so many unemployed, with so few consequences for the money lenders and corporate bigwigs who drove the economy into the ground?

However, I understood that New Paltz may be the place to be because no one else would have them.  I remarked to my wife back in December that this could become the epicenter of the movement, because they would be allowed to stay.

But as a guy who doesn't venture out much in the winter, I can't say I've seen much that looks like activism.  Or protest.  The park is a poor location for visibility, and the number of people was always terribly small, so the challenges were large.  But primarily this is a question of PR, and I guess no one involved at this location had any skills in that area.

We needed to know why they were here.  Not guessing and rumors, but clear action of some kind, in-your-face action that would distinguish this protest from a bunch of people camping out in the park.

I'm here to tell you that it's still not happened.  There's a bit more talk about the legality of the protest, but no one has explained to me why New Paltz had an Occupation.

When I say "me," I am referring to every New Paltz citizen who doesn't spend his or her life focused on politics and activism.  There's more than a couple of us, I think it's fair to say.

It could be that the Occupation accomplished a lot, but I don't know about it.  And why should I know?  Because the ordinary citizens of this town need to be behind something like this if it's to succeed.  Politicians are weak, and bow to political pressure.  If the average Paltzian had been swayed to at least passively support the Occupation, it would still be there.  And no one would be spending time and money in court.  Including my tax money, when the village gets sued, which I think it will be.

Occupiers, please understand:  I want to support you.  As of now, though, I haven't the foggiest idea how or why.

Word to the wise

If I (or any New Paltz resident) asks for your campaign lawn sign and place it on my lawn, and then ask for a replacement when it goes missing, don't say to me, "I always assumed you were voting against me."

The cognitive dissonance of that statement is so very, very strong that I wonder how you can put your pants on in the morning, much less run a village.  March of 2015 cannot come soon enough.

We are the 99%, at least in spirit

At the New Paltz School Board meeting this week, there was a report by a representative from Alliance for Quality Education, a group focused on restoring millions of dollars' worth of state aid to local schools, and to make sure that the aid is distributed equitably.

I heard AQE's director, Billy Easton, speak at an event at Rondout Valley High School a few weeks ago.  He was on fire as he showed how the cuts disproportionately harm the poorest districts.  In fact, in the latest round of state aid shuffling, Rondout Valley is losing another half-million dollars.

Listening to the AQE rep speaking in New Paltz, I was amazed by the difference.  The fellow was hesitant and apologetic as he explained that our district isn't really one of the ones that AQE's mission will help.  Finally, Superintendent Maria Rice said it for him.

"We're a wealthy district according to state standards," she said.

Sure enough, while Rondout Valley lost half a million, board members here reported that the new state aid allocation will have them "about even," in Kt Tobin's words.

We may well feel like we're part of the subjugated majority in New Paltz, but there's at least one group out there which thinks we get too big a handout, and wants to take some away.

Occupying New Paltz

Like most New Paltz residents, I haven't visited Occupy New Paltz in Hasbrouck Park, nor do I think there's anything wrong with that.  They're the ones hanging out in tents in the cold; I tend to agree with Jason West that it's their job to reach out and explain to me why.

West is reportedly disappointed with that lack of outreach (but given that the same reporter claimed there was only one protester left, which has been denied by Amanda Sisenstein, the group's informal liaison, at a recent village board meeting, I wonder if that reporter even shows up for the things he writes about).

At that same meeting, former trustee Robert Feldman complained about the protest.  That's great.  Feldman couldn't be bothered showing up to finish out his term as a trustee - twice - but he finds the time to show up and whine.  Does anyone listen to this guy anymore?

I wasn't able to attend that meeting, so I spoke to a trustee who does show up to do her job - Sally Rhoads.  Sally is also one of a minority of trustees who still take my calls; apparently in the politics of the village the idea is to be responsive until you're elected, and then to become much too busy to talk to voters and taxpayers.

Sally and I discussed various rumors and conjecturing going on about the local Occupy protest.  Are they stealing resources?  Making a mess?  Causing problems?  She told me that these were the kinds of questions the board had, as well.

• Electricity is being used by the protesters, taken from an outlet in the gazebo.  Apparently that outlet was once locked, but not in my memory.  Sally wasn't aware that park users regularly plug in cell phones and other devices to that outlet until I told her.  The board feels that paying for the electricity is appropriate.
• Fire safety is a concern, given that electric and/or kerosene heaters are being used around nylon tents.  Firemen are nervous and the board wants the heaters to go.
• Noise complaints were talked about, as well; apparently loud music has been heard in the early morning hours.  It's not clear if the police were ever called about that.
• Sexual assault of one or more Occupiers hit the news early on; according to Rhoads, the perp never identified himself as part of the movement, and was effectively stalking them.  As noted in a letter to the New Paltz Times, the Occupiers turned him in.
• The gazebo has been taken over, which was not part of the original plan, and it concerns the board.  In the above-referenced article West mentions that people feel like it's an intrusion to visit, so it's safe to assume that those few people who might want to enjoy the gazebo at this time of year don't feel welcome in their own park.
• Trash isn't being picked up timely, and my sense is that if sanitation doesn't improve the board will have to act.
• Being in the park after dark is now, pardon the pun, a grey area.  The board is allowing Occupy to stay there, but according to Rhoads if someone else were to hang out in the park or pitch a tent for the night, it wouldn't be okay.  I haven't spoken to the police about their approach to this yet.
• Drunk and disorderly people in the park have apparently been our usual locals, who aren't used to their gazebo being Occupied.

So the movement continues, but it's not clear exactly what it is that's being moved.  Many progressive people I have spoken to, including explicit supporters of the Occupy movement, are puzzled by Occupy New Paltz.  Given the questions asked by the village board, even the members who claim to have visited, our governing body has nary a clue what they're doing in the park and are simply reacting to complaints and rumors by asking village resident Amanda Sisenstein to get answers.

So like most things in New Paltz, we have gone off half-cocked on this protest.  Maybe it's a good thing, but even our elected officials can't provide any specific reasons why.  There are many complaints, but those complaining are equally ignorant.  Maybe the idea of having a nationally-known protest visit our park gives us a warm and fuzzy feeling of radicalism, but thus far the only thing it's accomplished is the creation of rumors and the Occupation of the village board's agenda.

Salary comparison: New Paltz and Lloyd

This week's New Paltz Times conveniently has the salaries for officials in New Paltz and Lloyd town government on opposite pages.  It's an interesting comparison.

• New Paltz pays its supervisor $19,312 more than Lloyd
• Board members earn $9,469 in Lloyd, $469 more than here
• They pay their highway superintendent $19,000 more
• Lloyd's town clerk makes an extra $7,755
• Our justices get $2,614 less each than theirs

In all, New Paltz pays its town elected officials $14,547 less than its neighbor to the east.  The supervisor and highway superintendent are pretty much a wash; for some reason, each town values one of those positions significantly higher than the other.  Given that the highway superintendent's budget is part of the budget which the supervisor presents, it seems that New Paltz has had a strong supervisor for many years, while Lloyd's town council is comprised of people who watch out for the salaries of other positions instead.

Of course I'd rather see elected officials get paid minimum wage (with overtime, of course), complete with filling out time sheets, and I'd do it at all levels of government.

Reevaluating recycling

I haven't talked nearly as much about the New Paltz Recycling Center as I should have.  Hidden behind the highway garage on Clearwater Road, it's so unknown that Google Maps confused it with the BMX track.

Recycling in New Paltz has had a tumultuous history.  When it was part of the highway department, it was never all that clear how much money it was making or losing, or exactly how many deer carcasses town employees dumped around back.  After it was split off and the Hudson Valley Materials Exchange signed a lease, it didn't get much better, because HVME paid little or nothing and again, it wasn't clear how much the place was making or losing.  Now HVME is gone, and the trailers of stuff belong to the town and are sold by the "ReUse Center."

The center makes most of its money by selling bulk scrap metal and other recyclable materials.  The retail aspect could continue to grow, but I think the way the town collects recycling is bass-ackwards.

Town residents shouldn't pay for a permit, and shouldn't pay to dispose of anything that the center can sell for money.  It's insulting to charge me money to drop off something that you can resell.  Make the permit to recycle free, and charge for garbage, period.  The town of Rochester has a free permit, and they keep it free because supervisor Carl Chipman doesn't want his recession-plagued residents to start dumping garbage on the roads.  You can market the free permit and encourage more people to drop off those cash cows.  It's even been suggested to me that the town could invest in a bottle machine, or some other method, that would allow the often-idle employees to collect more money by retrieving deposit bottles.

The center makes money, and even if it didn't, it improves the quality of life in the town by keeping crap off of our roads.  Let's drop the barriers to recycling and increase how much this underutilized service can make.

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.