Consolidation creeps closer

 

As the first vote on the fate of the village in over a generation approaches, final preparations are coming into place and voters are going to have to sit with the information they have as they make their decision.

Several public sessions are planned:

• Oct. 13, 2 p.m., Woodland Pond
• Oct. 20, 6 p.m., Lecture Center 108, SUNY New Paltz
• Oct. 22, 6:30 p.m., community center
• Oct. 20, 4 p.m., Van Den Berg Hall, SUNY New Paltz

Post cards a "situation"

Mayor Alex Wojcik reported at the Oct. 7 village board meeting that the promise of post cards has become complicated. Trustees had committed to spending $1,000, believed to be half of the total cost to send an informational piece out to all residents, but it seems that delivering to all addresses in the more rural outer parts of the town will be much more expensive. The total, as reported to Wojcik by the deputy supervisor, will be $4,361.03. Trustees have declined to pay half of that total bill on the recommendation of the village treasurer, who advised that $83,323.69 has already been spent on consolidation. Instead, they are committing to getting post cards out to village residents directly.

Trustee Allen Ross, a supporter of consolidation, agreed with that assessment but appeared torn. "The problem is that I am using words like 'we' or 'they,'" Ross said, and that's a dichotomy the trustee feels would disappear if the village layer of government were to be folded into the town. However, Ross recognized that trustees must represent their own constituents, and that paying the additional posted to reach residents outside beyond that remit was not appropriate.

The NYCOM position

Wojcik also read from an opinion prepared through the New York Conference of Mayors, which while linked in the agenda, was not accessible to without authorization. According to the mayor's recounting, the opinion suggests that consolidating governments with similar population bases—such as two rural populations, or two more dense areas—would be more likely to be a smooth process.

"That's the United States," said Ross, who rejected the suggestion that that made it a bad idea. Among the examples Ross offered was being able to have a voice in things that impact the viewshed from the village, or the urbanization of the downtown, for those who do not live in those particular areas. Moreover, Ross noted that given the concentration of residents in what's now the village, it appears unlikely that their democratic voice would be silenced if only one government ruled the community.

To Wojcik, the density of the village makes services like water and sewer possible, and that's why the village exists. Ross countered that the town has millions of dollars that had been held in fund balance, and that money might be more equitably distributed throughout the community without the us-or-them mentality imposed by the presence of two governments.

Funding

Supervisor Rogers has frequently spoken about "counterintuitive funding models" that exist when there's a village in a town. Wojcik has raised some of these to support the preservation of the village. While state grants to improve leaking sewer lines rely on the income levels in census tracts—because they draw on federal money—not all grants use the same formula, the mayor explained. Some funding relies on the independence of the village as an impoverished jurisdiction, and the mayor anticipates that if the village goes away, some sources of money do as well.

The labor question

Village employees are worried about the future, and that's been enough of an argument for many to plan to vote against consolidation. Union members have rejected it formally, and employees who have spoken on condition of anonymity have expressed a lack of confidence that Rogers will come through with a promised contract that preserves everything they now have under a new government. As has been noted many times, there's a lot that must be trusted to future town leaders to ensure should consolidation occur.

However, the supervisor is working toward negotiating a contract that captures the best features of the current town and village agreements. When asked for comment, Rogers acknowledged having said in the past that this would be needed for this vote to happen at all. It's too late to stop the vote now, but the supervisor did say that if such an agreement is not reached, then Rogers would no longer support consolidating the governments.

Another issue that lingers, though, is that of shop leadership. On the public works side, employees have been under a single appointed superintendent for decades, and would be moving to a structure overseen by someone who is elected—and may or may not be good at managing. Rogers has indicated that eliminating the elected highway superintendent could have been included in this plan, but was left out to minimize its complexity.

Financial and administrative employees in the village are now overseen by a clerk-treasurer who gets high marks all around, and who will likely retire. The town's comptroller continues to operate under a cloud, as having worked on the town board to create that as a civil service position, resign to take the job, only to fail the test. It was then restructured not to be a civil service job at all in order to retain the same person.

Village employees of all stripes appear uneasy with who they might be working for after consolidation.

Fire control

The consolidation plan calls for the existing fire company to be transformed into an entity that would handle fire management contracts, much like is done with the rescue squad. The fire chief has said that the decision was made not to evaluate that proposal unless consolidation is a sure thing, because it's going to result in high legal bills that taxpayers aren't going to cover. Voters will have to make their decision without any outside experts weighing in on this question.

a new news plan

This blog has been inactive for a dozen years, for the simple fact that I, its creator and primary author, have been writing for New Paltz Times and its successor, Hudson Valley One, covering important meetings and helping residents know what's happening in the community instead of sharing my own opinions.

It's not easy to get anyone to buy a paper these days, and the folks at Ulster Publishing are always looking for more ideas to make their publications more appealing to the paying public.  There has long been an idea that covering local meetings isn't very important, and recently my assignments have pulled me away from that beat.  I will continue to write for Hudson Valley One, but that doesn't mean I agree with that assessment.

For that reason I am dusting off this blog as a temporary place to provide coverage of stories that are important to those in New Paltz, including the upcoming vote on consolidation.  For the moment, this is what to expect:

1. I will be applying journalistic standards as best I can, mindful that without an editor it might not be as polished.  This means focusing on what others say or write, and facts that can be confirmed, rather than deliberately injecting my own viewpoint.
2. Comments will, for now, be open, and welcome.  The amount of readers is going to help determine if this experiment continues, and in what form.  Comments are one way to help gauge that.
3. If there is enough interest, a new site will be launched to cover topics that are not being addressed in Hudson Valley One.  It will be designed to complement our local paper, not compete with it.
4. A local news site requires time and money, and will only succeed if readers are willing to contribute money.  What form that takes will be determined at a later date.

 Thank you for your interest.

Let's talk money

It's nice to see an actual debate taking place over the mayoral salary. It was intellectually dishonest for the current mayor to give himself a significant raise in his first budget, expecting the fact that Trustee Rhoads made the suggestion to square the fact that he never mentioned it during his campaign. It was reprehensible for the board to reverse that raise in a surprise action late at night, which no one believed was not orchestrated (even the people who thought the raise a year earlier wasn't).

Having this conversation in public is a good idea. We all should know who is advocating because they like or dislike the current mayor, and whose arguments are rooted in a concern for the village.

You know what else would be good for political discourse? Not asking the Chamber of Commerce to moderate candidate events. They need to work with whoever wins, so they weed out questions that really need to be asked -- like whether a candidate is planning on budgeting a raise, or how one's personal relationship with another candidate might translate if they both shall win.

If we can't get our local paper to take on this task, how about the League of Women Voters?

Polemic

Leading up to last night's Democratic caucus in New Paltz, I read so many polemics that I had to look the word it up make sure it really meant what I thought it did.  It did.  These attacks were lobbed at candidates I support, candidates I don't support, candidates I don't give a hoot about either way, and anyone perceived as having an opinion about anything, which could be inferred by as small an action as clicking a "like" button on Facebook.

This kind of communication accomplishes nothing of real value, of course.  In a community of this size, the people attacked regularly run into their attackers at My Market or Health-Carrot-Nutrition, making for awkward avoidance schemes.  Even if your candidates of choice win in an election, the wounds fester and lead to vengeance candidates being launched against them.

I am irritated to the point of ranting about this sort of thing, which any thoughtful person knows is a sure sign that I am as guilty as any of those there idiots.  It's irritating mostly because the people launching the attacks are desperate to shunt others into, well, "the other."  Two years ago some guy from Gardiner decided, based on my party registration alone, that I am a tool of planet-destroying evil, and still has no clue that I am a dirt-worshiping environmentalist who cares more about the environment than the majority of the present New Paltz Town Council.  He had to make me into the "other" because recognizing that people are complex makes polemics, and politics, harder.

What I'm waiting for is to be labeled part of the "Jason West cult" because I have, twice now, ripped into village board members known and unknown for nasty attacks.  Anyone who has mentioned the man's name around me in the last two years would quickly be disabused of that notion, or would be if their attack-mode brains could process more options than "yes" and "no."

I'm not the only target, and really I'm one of the least targets, but I'm an expert on me, so I'm the best example I have.  Of course, I spend less time pondering the impact of my words on others, so right now I'm going to rattle off a few thoughts that are decidedly not attacks.

• Tom Nyquist has busted his butt making the bird sanctuary a gem.  If you haven't visited, you should.
• I met Steve Auerbach for the first time last night.  He is thoughtful, well-spoken, and polite.
• Bill Mulcahy draws political cartoons better than anyone in New Paltz, and expresses his views brilliantly in that format.  The New Paltz Times should pay him to do so.
• If ever there is a serious threat to the environment, Susan Zimet is the kind of person I want in the trenches, because when there are battles and enemies and someone else calling the shots, no one can compare.
• Jason West's knowledge of history and law should be cherished for the treasure they are.
• Hector Rodriguez is an excellent parliamentarian.

Maybe we make out our neighbors to be pure evil because we feel bad voting against them otherwise, but we're grown-ups, and we live together.  Lying and polarizing is a short-term solution that makes for long-term problems.  Gossip and whisper campaigns are just as bad.  We need to recognize that all of our neighbors add something good to our community, and we need to be willing to look those neighbors in the eye and acknowledge when we don't agree.  

On Facebook, in the letters column, we are willing to speak our minds, but then we pretend that these aren't real life, and that those opinions we share have no impact.  They do.  If we would not say something to a person directly, we should not be typing it in a private email, or a public posting, or saying it to other people while clustered in the corner of our favorite wine bar.

New Paltz is a microcosm of this great nation of ours.  Let's try to remember that our community is filled with good, and that writing polemics is the very core of evil.

Mayor West discloses he's bipolar . . . but to whom?

An article in the Times Herald-Record sports the ambiguous headline West discloses he suffers from bipolar disorder, which has caused several reactions of heartwarming support for his courageous admission around social media.  However, things are not what they seem.  The article states:

West sent an email to Village Board members Thursday, saying that he was diagnosed with the disorder in 2011.

He did not send an email to reporter Jeremiah Horrigan, nor did he post this information to Facebook, nor did he write a letter to the New Paltz Times.  What he did was explain to village board members why he was taking a leave of absence.

And somebody on that board shared the email with a reporter.

My feuds with Jason West are by no means private; he has been a real jerk to me without good reason, and he and I will never, ever be friends.  But this was a very low blow, and it offends me to the core.  I may not like the guy, but I like injustice a whole lot less.  That's why I scolded the village board for cutting his salary, even though I was offended by his raise.  That's why, when trustee Sally Rhoads whispered to me before that village board meeting that West had worked against my wife and I getting our sewer back, I dismissed it as the petty politics it was.  (I'm actually sure she was telling the truth, but Mrs. Rhoads is a strong woman, and if she'd cared about my family's welfare rather than its value as a political pawn, she could have overcome his resistance.)

We live in an purportedly enlightened society, but not so enlightened that some board member didn't think that the mayor having a mental illness would be news.  Point of fact, it's none of our damned business what the man struggles with; he can either do the job or he can't, and we get once chance every four years to evaluate our opinion on the matter.

As someone who has struggled with clinical depression for most of my life, I know that people are going to look at him differently.  He will see it, even if the people doing it don't.  We have a tendency to overcompensate when we don't understand a disability, which any chronic illness is, and it's even worse if that disability is invisible.

Bipolar disorder can well explain someone being a mind-blowingly rude jerk, just like depression can.  I've certainly ostracized my share of people when my chemistry is out of whack, but it's still my responsibility, and if I want to mend those bridges, I still need to do it the hard way.  Being bipolar doesn't excuse West for bad behavior, but it sure as hell isn't an excuse to treat him like crap, either.

I sincerely hope I didn't vote for the lowlife who told the press about this, but with my voting record, I probably did.

Lawsuit, here we come!

The village board loves a law suit.  Makes me glad that my tax dollars are going to attorneys rather than, oh, building a new sewer system.

This time, it's about Mayor West's salary.  A brief recap on that subject:

In 2007, after unsuccessfully pushing to get his salary boosted to $40,000 a year, Jason West was ousted as mayor after making a name for himself nationwide.

Last year, the village board decided to give themselves raises, for a job well done.  Trustee Rhoads swears that any pay changes must be done at budget time, but she has yet to explain to me why none of the candidates the prior year had broached the subject.  That Rhoads suggested it was, in large part, why it went through.

This past April, West asked for another 5-digit increase, and instead, the board pulled the rug out from under him.  He must have forgotten that he's only ever gotten raises when someone else does the asking.  I think he'll remember that now.

I joined with others, mostly supporters of the mayor, in denouncing the pay cuts which, like the raises the year before, I feel were morally reprehensible.  Let the voters decide if you're worth some extra cash, or deserve a cut, by proposing the changes before the election.  If you want to change someone's pay during their term, it should require a referendum, I believe.

He may irritate as many people as he ensorcels, but West is a studied man, so it's no surprise he found documents suggesting that the pay cut was illegal.  The village attorney was asked to chime in and, not surprisingly, found cases to support the pay cut.  This is what happens when people write laws to their benefit:  elected officials cover their asses, instead of protecting their constituents.

Early this afternoon, I encouraged the board via email to seek another comptroller's opinion.  The ones West produced referred to town officials, and they need one specifically addressing villages.  And I suggested that they ask about pay raises, as well as cuts, because I certainly don't expect West to go there on his own.

Instead, in an executive session which did not include the mayor, they did nothing.  "I was told a majority of the Trustees would rather have a lawsuit," he reported on Facebook.

I am not at all surprised.  After all, I pleaded with the board, and the mayor, to get the DPW to dig me a trench for a new sewer line, after an illegally-approved subdivision led to a house being built on my old one.  I offered to pay the three grand for the plumber, and wanted the village to dig and fill in the trench.  Instead, they told me too bad, so sad, and my wife and I had to sue.  Rest assured, the entire debacle cost village taxpayers far more than it would have to simply fix the problem the village created, but some members of the board chose to act out of spite, rather than protect the community.

A "majority" of the board, if there were four in the room, means three votes, correct?  So who voted what, I wonder?  And will there be accounting of how much this childishness is costing us?

Resident scandal

Jason West, it turns out, lives across the street from the village he is tasked with running.  It's the latest chapter in the continuing story I like to call Game of Chairs, until I realize that I'm not funny enough to be making up names for things.

The drama does have all the elements of fun political fight, though:  a charismatic mayor who inspires strong feelings one way or the other, a cadre of retirees seeking a return to the glory days when they were in power, a district attorney on the case, dueling legal arguments, elected officials too focused on their dislike of each other to ever get around to governing . . . who likes popcorn?

I've never met Ms Danskin -- I wouldn't know who she was if she cut me off with a shopping cart in Stop & Shop.  I do know that she counts herself among a group of people who never forgave Mr West for winning his 2003 election, people who have sought ways to get rid of the guy ever since.  And he's practically gone out of his way to give them the chance, it seems:  breaking the law early in his first term, getting ousted after only one term, fighting consolidation with the town . . . and now, by leaving the village entirely, albeit "temporarily," in his words.

Residency requirements seem like they shouldn't be too tough to enforce, but once you ask lawyers to write the very laws they will one day argue in court, nothing is simple.  An attorney I was once friends with taught me that if you don't want to have to commit to something, put it in writing.  Simple laws could be simply enforced, but time and again we've seen that the residency requirements for elected officials are slippery.

• Brian Kimbiz wandered off for three months, justifying it by not taking pay, and the board found that booting him would be more trouble that it's worth.
• Stewart Glenn bought a new house in Gardiner, and rented an apartment in the one he sold until his term expired.
• Susan Zimet had her house for sale before she ever ran for her present stint as supervisor, and uses an apartment in the village to fulfill her residency requirement.

Common sense says that a person either lives here or doesn't, but common law is an entirely unrelated concept.  So the desire to chase after the mayor, when these other recent examples have been largely unchallenged, is clearly fueled by a dislike of the man or his policies.

Okay, I get that.  Mr West has described himself as impatient and short-tempered, qualities which have inspired no small number of allies to abandon him, at least temporarily.  I share those qualities with him, meaning that my clash with him was all but inevitable.  If you're a short-fused jerk in public office, you make enemies.  And if you make enemies of a landlord, and then move into a place outside of the village, expect your enemy to find out about it.

But the extra wrinkle here is the dimension of voter residency.  That's the part that actually got the Mr West targeted.  Voter law, says the village attorney, hinges on whether the relocation is temporary or not.  That's why we have absentee ballots, and mechanisms to allow homeless people to vote.  He signed candidate petitions, and voted, using his old Church Street address.  According to at least one attorney, that's okay.

On the other hand, we have the argument that using his old address is tantamount to fraud.  If and when he returns to a village address, it won't be that one, so isn't it a lie to claim he lived there when he didn't?

This is where we return to fun with attorneys, the game that everyone not wearing a Brooks Brothers suit loses.  West has, finally, retained his own counsel; based on past history and the mayor's current pay level I suspect it's a pro bono arrangement.  The village attorney is likely to continue to represent the village clerk and board, so he will probably be diverting some of his tax-funded time to this issue.  The district attorney's office, also paid for through taxes, will also be devoting energy to this investigation, which will surely take up the time of a judge or two along the way.

My guess is that, a year from now, we will know if Mr West will be allowed to complete his term of office or not.  What a utter waste of my tax dollars.

To Ms Danskin, Mrs Rhoads, Mr Dungan, and the many, many people who wish to see Jason West removed from office:  there is a tried-and-true mechanism to achieve your goal, called democracy.  Please use it.  I completely sympathize with your desire to get Mr West out of this village, and I understand that he keeps giving you opportunities to try again, but seriously, stop it.  This is wasting my money on a legal case that is by no means clear, because we keep letting lawyers write the laws.  I'm sorry you haven't gotten him out of office permanently, but if you'd find a decent candidate, I and many others would line up to help.  But don't grind my village government to a halt, and pick my pocket, because you don't like him.  Be a grown-up, and use the electoral process to unseat him.  If you can't get behind a single candidate in 2015, maybe it's time to find a new hobby.