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?

Politics hits village paychecks

In a surprise move last Wednesday night, the New Paltz village board voted to return trustee and mayoral salaries to the levels they were a year ago.  What's amazing is that the reasons for doing so were even worse than the ones that justified voting themselves a raise in the first place.

Check out video of the meeting, which I have cued up to start at 1:55:30, which is when the discussion begins.  Then come on back for some context and analysis.

Recall that back in 2006, after getting a raise from $8,000 to $25,000, Jason West was rebuffed when he asked for the job to be defined as full-time, with a $40,000 salary and benefits.  He expressed at the time that he would have to go back to painting houses, and the village would not get as much of him as it needed.

Somehow, it survived.  West lost an election, and then won the next.  Apparently unaware that the job description and pay rate was the same as it had been, the returned mayor did recall how heavily his request to a second large raise had factored into his defeat, so he got trustee Sally Rhoads to make the pitch for raises all around a year into his new term.

At the time, I denounced the idea of midterm raises, as did some trustees.  Stewart Glenn expressed then, and this past week, the same argument I did:  elected officials know how much the job pays when they're running for it, so they should either put the idea of a raise into their campaign platform, or defer any increase until past the next election.  (A comment on the post linked at the beginning of this paragraph claims that West stated publicly in 2011 that he would neither seek nor accept an increase in pay, but I haven't confirmed that.)

Which brings us to this week, when four trustees voted to strip themselves and the mayor of last year's boost for the coming year, and knock the big job back to a part-time position.  Last year the arguments for the the raises had to do with attracting the right sort of people, acknowledging how hard the jobs are (our village board meets at three or more times a month and spend far more hours doing their jobs than I have ever understood), and so forth.

But this time around, in voting to roll back the reasons, the effectively said it was because they all think Jason West is a lazy jerk.

I'm going to put my cards on the table here:  I don't like Jason West.  I supported his return to office after six months of questioning him to see if he was a better man for his years off, but soon thereafter he decided he didn't have the time to talk to me about village business . . . despite having appointed me to a volunteer board.  When I called him on it, he likened me to a stalker, and when my sewer line was destroyed by village incompetence, he told me to get a port-a-potty.

I read Pride and Politics, Erin Quinn's book about the same-sex weddings (which is apparently out of print), and it was obvious that West did the right thing for the wrong reasons:  he wanted to officiate at a friend's wedding, plain and simple.  To help those friends, he told the village attorney for find a legal justification for marrying them.  Because I'm not a friend, when my family needed help, he told the village attorney to handle me.  (In the end, that decision cost the village close to $9,000, when all I wanted was a couple of days for the DPW guys to put back in what the planning board had illegally allowed to be taken out.)

So as someone who doesn't like Jason West and doesn't think New Paltz needs a man like him, let me state clearly:  the village board was wrong to cut Jason West's salary.  It was wrong for two big reasons:

1. Just like a raise, it may be legal to push the cut through mid-term, but it's completely inappropriate.  Don't change the terms of the employment contract, period.  It's nice to see it rolled back because it was the height of hubris to pass the raise in the first place, but who on earth is going to run for a job if they are committed to four years and have no clue how much they're going to make each year?  Running for office is a balancing act:  can I afford what the position pays, and is it a reasonable trade-off for the power I will wield?  Candidates need to be able to make that determination.
2. It's immature.  I plan on voting against West in 2015, but I don't spit in his face when I meet him on the street.  That's what the board has done, because they don't like him.  He has resisted consolidation efforts, almost certainly to protect his own job, but he's raised perfectly valid points along the way.  If you didn't know who he was when you voted for him, like me, then you'll just have to act like an adult and put up with him for another two years.

Incidentally, this problem is by no means just a village issue.  Sue Zimet shouldn't have gotten a pay raise, either, and when Mike Nielson got one as highway superintendent back in 2010, he sent them a letter telling them to take it back, saying in part, "When I ran for my current position I understood the length of term and compensation provided. Bearing that in mind I respectfully request that the salary of the Superintendent of Highways remain at the current level for the entirety of my current term."

Nielson's letter was never discussed at any public meeting, and his request was ignored.

Nielson also pointed out all of the arguments regarding attracting the best people to the job, and in fact suggested that a higher salary for that position was appropriate . . . for the next term.  That was the only time I have seen an elected official in this town who really cared more about the community than his own political future.  I really hope we can find a way to attract more like him.

Now is not the time for village raises

I won't be able to attend the village board meeting tonight, but I've given it some thought and I don't believe it's appropriate to be putting raises for our elected officials in the next budget.

What I do believe is that costs go up, and the jobs have gotten more demanding.  Having a discussion about those salaries is probably long overdue.  For the mayor's position, this also entails whether or not we need a full-time mayor.

However, each of our five representatives ran for office well aware of the salary that came with the job.  Being sworn in, in my mind, carries the moral weight of signing a contract.  In this case, they are four-year contracts, with both duties and compensation spelled out.  They knew what the job would take, and how much it would pay, and they agreed to do that job, for four years, two in the case of Stewart Glenn.

If Mr. Glenn, or Ariana Basco, Sally Rhoads, or Jason West believed these positions were underpaid (and they may well be), the time to discuss it was when they were running for office a year ago.  I don't recall Mr. West or Ms. Basco mentioning it when they visited my home, nor did Ms. Rhoads or Mr. Glenn mention the salaries during the campaign, to my knowledge.

So instead of slipping in a pay raise in a year during which no one is running for office, I would like to see an open discussion about compensation, with an understanding that any raises be put into place such that they start at the beginning of a new term.  Yes, that means any incumbents who are running will have to justify those increases, which is entirely appropriate.

There are lots of reasons to increase pay for our elected officials.  Slipping it by during the low point of the accountability cycle is not the way to do it.  If the arguments are good, they will stand up under full public scrutiny.

Lessons learned from the 2011 village elections

This was a great year for political junkies and others in New Paltz.  Four mayoral candidates, 7 competing for two trustee seats, and two more vying for a two-year term in a cursed seat.  I heard a lot of different views and watched many different strategies.  Here's a smattering of what I learned.  Hopefully it will help candidates in future elections.

1. Negative campaigning doesn't work.  Watching the debates, I got the impression that three people were running for mayor, but the fourth was running against Jason West.  This strategy is often employed when an opponent has a hate club, but it always seems to fail.  Rick Lazio has made a career out of having no qualifications other than not being Hillary or not being Cuomo. John Kerry was possibly the only man alive who could have lost to Bush in 2004, all due to his "I'm not George" campaign.  People want to know what you are,, not what you're not.
2. Turn your signs around.  One candidate's lawn signs were always placed parallel to the sidewalk, where they were visible mostly to residents and neighbors across the street.  Unless you've got several hundred very obedient tenants, turn your signs so we can read them as we walk and drive by.
3. Public speaking matters . . . somewhat.  Not every candidate was cut out for public speaking.  One earned my respect because he was willing to try anyway.  He got nearly 300 votes despite that disadvantage.
4. Knock on doors.  I got two door-knocks that I know about, one of which caught us at home.  Both the knockers won last night.  It's the only way to reach out, particularly if you have trouble speaking to large groups.  Walk around.  Talk to people.  Be memorable.
5. The red card.  Whoever sent the anti-West "red card" out just prior to the election most likely got him votes.  No matter who it was, it was slimy and underhanded.  One candidate was implicated by some due to his public anti-West comments (see how keeping things positive helps?), and fair or not, I think the votes West due to the red card may have been destined for that other candidate.  I will publicly disclose that person's identity as soon as I have proof.
6. Seniors matter even more.  Senior citizens are more likely to vote, have more time to pay attention, and have the experience to form solid opinions about what works and what doesn't.  Woodland Pond has made it possible to reach out to a big chunk of the senior community easily, and I saw a lot of residents voting when I did.  I also heard a lot of condescending remarks aimed at seniors during the campaign ("you're lucky to be here"), and the folks on line with me confirmed that yes, they were indeed insulted. Senior citizens know more than younger people, and see things with a perspective we just can't grasp at a younger age. Ignore them, or patronize them, at your peril.

Here's hoping for a nondysfunctional village board.

New Paltz Village Election Results 2011

Two-year trustee

• Osborn 337
• Glenn 377

Full-term trustee

• Cohen 37
• Crocetti 73
• Sherow 187
• Bunt 262
• Ruger 299
• Rhoads 331
• Basco 372

Mayor

• Cohen 31
• Healey 158
• Gallucci 314
• West 381

Write-in votes for various candidates.

Grow up and vote!

A New Paltz lawn decoration

I invited all the mayoral candidates to put a sign on my lawn.  Only one responded, and my wife saw the sign, but I never did.  By the time I stepped outside on Sunday, both our sign and the one across the street (for the same candidate) were gone.

This has happened before, and I warned the candidates of the possibility.  But I was expecting signs to go missing in the dark of night, when the students are crawling back to bed, and that they would be replaced with lawn decorations.  When I have invited businesses to put a sign on my lawn, that's usually what happens.  They disappear, either to be tossed into the undergrowth or to hang on a dorm room wall.

But these signs disappeared on a Sunday morning, when the alcohol which promotes mischief has moved on to creating stupor and hangovers.  My previous political sign took effort to remove, so I suspected foul play; this one was much easier to take, but I think it was more likely an opponent, not an admirer, who nicked it.

I guess over 200 years of being a college town takes its toll on the adults, too.  But I still love this town, despite the ninnies and cowards who share it with me.

Who am I voting for?

This year's village elections are so interesting that it seems like half the letters in this week's paper were from out of town.  It's not an easy choice, and I haven't actually made it yet, because I don't like closing my mind off to the possibilities.  Voting is an art perfected by procrastination - you never know what may change someone's mind.

I like to ask questions which are unorthodox, because they provide a lot of insight.  Like whether or not you'd be willing to wear a top hat if elected mayor, or whether you support a village militia.  Questions like that tell me a lot about how a candidate views the job, or views the village.  I know that I've only got one vote, but we all know how important one vote is in the Village of New Paltz, don't we?

I know that the clever voters are only voting for one four-year trustee spot, because they don't want their votes to counteract each other.  I can't tell you which pairs of candidates would cause that to happen, but there are plenty of people closer to the pulse of the voters than I.

More and more I am finding that I trust candidates who have lived in New Paltz for more than twenty minutes (that's Dener minutes, each one equals a year).  I don't care if the candidate's family hauled stones for Jean Hasbrouck, though; just because you're related to history doesn't mean that you have any knowledge or appreciation of it.

My bias towards age is in part fueled by two subpar trustees which we've elected in the past ten years.  We've also had plenty of terrible trustees and mayors who were much older, so I don't completely trust my gut on this one.  At least one young candidate strikes me as being completely unaware about village concerns and issues.  Another seems quite the opposite.

I'd like to see the residency requirements monitored and enforced more aggressively.  There's no reason for rumor or expectation of trustees not living in the village; we need a rule that can be tracked and verified so the situation can be dealt with.  I'd like to add to that an attendance requirement.  I don't care if the village board meets twice a year or 200, but trustees should be attendance for the vast majority of the time.

At the Chamber of Commerce forum I came to realize that village politics do not have to be dominated by people with engaging public speaking skills.  This is a small town, so if we choose, we can elect someone who is shy, or suffers from stage fright, or whose reflective personality doesn't lend itself to quick, off-the-cuff answers.  We also don't have to vote for one person because it will improve the chances of someone else being elected.  No, we can actually choose to vote for the people that will put the best foot of New Paltz forward.

Sorry I don't have any endorsements, or even decisions, quite yet.  Elections are just too important to rush.

Open call to New Paltz Village candidates

If you're thinking of running for office in the Village of New Paltz in the May 2011 election, I would like to talk to you.  Here's what I would like to know:

1. What are you running for?
2. Have you announced?  (I will not force your hand; someone already tried to get me to do this to a potential candidate but I'm not that easy to manipulate.)
3. Would you be interested in providing:
1. a guest post here?
2. an interview?

If you would like to contact me and do not have my contact information, feel free to leave a comment on this post.  All comments are moderated and I will be the only one to see them; they will be removed after I have read them.  Just give me an email address or phone number (or Facebook profile) at which to contact you.

Yet again, New Paltz is at odds over . . . what, exactly?

I have been asked to comment on the recent joint town-village . . . thing.  I have some thoughts, but not enough to form a cohesive opinion.  I have also invited one of the involved parties to share their perspective here.

Until one or the other of those things happens, please consider this a forum for debate.  I will try to get comments approved as frequently as I can, but the current local and internet climates preclude me from turning it off altogether.

Village volunteers: appreciated or not?

I've been pondering municipal volunteerism in New Paltz a lot recently, particularly in the village.  A community of this size relies quite a bit upon volunteers.  They run into burning buildings, preserve what's left of our non-human environment, interpret and enforce our laws, and expend a tremendous amount of effort on tasks that are at the same time mind-numbingly dull and critically important.  If you know someone who is volunteering for one of our local governments, please seek them out and thank them for their efforts.

It's getting more difficult to find people to fill the seats of the various boards and commissions in the village, and there are probably several factors for that.  Dual-income households don't have as much spare time for volunteering after job and family obligations are fulfilled.  Not only that, but parents spend far more time shuttling their kids from one activity to another than they once did.  Homeowners, the people who arguably have the most to gain by volunteering, are in a minority in the village.

Mayor Dungan has been working to resolve that last problem with his rental reforms.  The argument as I understand it is that tougher enforcement of safety standards in rentals will make some properties into less attractive investments, which will reduce housing prices for the many apartment residents who wish to own homes.  Likewise, the opening of Woodland Pond may exert some downward pressure on housing prices.  Whether either of these things will come to pass remains to be seen.  The impact on the local volunteer pool, if it does manifest, probably won't be felt for several years.

Troubled waters
In the meantime, there's a dearth of volunteers right now, and I don't think all the reasons are demographic.

At a recent village board meeting, Dr. Thomas Rocco indicated that he was prepared to resign if he didn't get what he wanted for the task force he chairs.  Was this a petulant outburst?  Hardly. Dr. Rocco wanted a survey his task force had spent months preparing to get into the village's water bills. The request had been made originally more than three months ago, but the March bills were sealed before the survey could be inserted.  Three months later, the night before the next round of bills were to be sealed and mailed, Dr. Rocco was utterly frustrated that they were at the same crossroads.  He indicated to the village board in public session that he didn't believe it was a good strategy to leave village volunteers wondering if their efforts were appreciated.

Concurrent to the problems expressed by Dr. Rocco is the resignation of Planning Board chair Ray Curran.  What few may to remember about Mr. Curran is that he was a minority voice for environmentally-sensible development, and that he took the chairmanship reluctantly upon the death of George Danskin.  Since I have never been chairman of that board, I have to wonder if I would have done any better.  Why should a man be expected to put more hours in as a volunteer than he does at his paid job?

The question of the proper funding and support of our firefighters has been discussed ad infinitum.  It seems to be Patrick O'Donnell's sole purpose as a village trustee.  Regardless of your position on the funding question, can you doubt that the firefighters themselves are more than a little disheartened by the whole thing?

I don't think it's just that we have a smaller pool of potential volunteers.  The people who do step up are asked to do too much with too little.  Instead of broad support of volunteers by the municipal government, we see these fine people and their work reduced to pet projects of one or two board members.  Occasionally, such as during this contentious time for the Planning Board, the political will exists to get some level of consensus.  Mostly, though, volunteers are left to sink or swim with little or no support.

Planning lessons for the Village are all around us

Local planning boards are living in interesting times, it seems.  The town's planning board lost its chairman and deputy recently (albeit in a much more sedate way than Lloyd's chairman, who was forcibly removed), and joins the village's planning board in being short members.

Chairman Paul Brown was given praise by those he worked with, and I agree with that assessment.  Paul tried hard to find agreements among differing parties, and did his best to separate his role of facilitating the meeting from his vote as a member.  He implemented a series of checks, balances, and systems which have long prevented the town's planning board of being the victim of the administrative errors and uninformed votes which have plagued the village's planning board.  He was also careful to recuse himself from discussions of the so-called Pyramind-Benanti project, a development which proposed a new connector road off Eugene L. Brown drive on land his family once owned.

Pity the chairman of Lloyd's planning board didn't understand conflict of interest rules as well; he was removed from his position because he crossed the line between his municipal volunteer actions and his role as a real estate agent looking to make a living.  It's going to be a little bit harder for real estate agents to be appointed to planning-related positions until memory of this incident fades.  I wish they had actually removed him entirely from the planning board, but it seems local governments are extremely fearful of preventing the "people's business" from being done if they lack a quorum on that board.

I doubt the village would have taken such a strong stance if it had discovered ethical violations in its own planning board - they've been struggling to maintain a quorum on it for years, and that fear is much stronger than anything but the loudest of public outcries.  Instead, the planning board administration seems hellbent on getting projects approved regardless of the rule of law, and there's no attempt to stop it.  Take the hookah bar application, for example.  I voted for it when I was a member, but at the time I didn't know that mayor Terry Dungan considered "four and three-quarters days" to be close enough to the legally-required five days' notice to be sufficient, nor did I know that even now chairman Ray Curran has not produced any proof that the notices were even mailed out for that public hearing.

I was personally stonewalled to the point of throwing in the towel and resigning from the planning board because I couldn't find out what I needed to know to make informed votes, and I was tired of fighting for the right to make my several hours a month of volunteer time remotely productive.  I know that for every case which is public shown to be deficient, there are probably many more which nobody has noticed yet.  For fear of losing its quorum, the village board is allowing its planning board to be run in such a cloak-and-dagger manner that its remaining members are not even aware of how much they do not know.  Chairman Ray Curran has repeatedly thwarted any attempts to shed more light on the proceedings, threatening to resign if the meetings are televised and denying without good cause my repeated requests for a public comment period at planning board meetings - something which Paul Brown had on the agenda for his entire tenure, and something  I hope his successor continues.

I don't believe the village is going to find and retain qualified planning board members as long as the board itself is run in secrecy.  The mayor tells me that there is very little that the village board can do; it cannot force a public comment period or demand that planning board members have the right to participate in off-line discussions, for example, because the planning board's independence is protected by law.  He has yet to explain why the village board took the weasel-like non-action of simply not bothering to renew the chair's term of office last June.  They could have either reappointed Mr. Curran (if they support his methods) or removed him (if they did not), but instead they chose to simply abdicate their responsibility.

Until the village learns some lessons from nearby towns, planning is going to continue down a dark, mysterious road that is fraught with bungled projects and uninformed votes.  How much longer will the village board permit this miscarriage of planning to continue?

Perplexed about parking on Plattekill

For the first time since the Village of New Paltz metered the Plattekill parking lot, I had the occasion to actually use it.  I'm fortunate to live close enough to downtown not to need to drive.

I'm completely in support of getting people out of their cars, walking instead of driving, for tons of reasons.  However, whether it be due to lack of time, lack of motivation, lack of physical ability, or lack of a nearby place to walk from, people will continue to drive into the village on occasion, and need to park.  The lot on Plattekill does not meet this need.

Oh, it's got plenty of spaces.  I found one easily enough and then walked all the way back to the Plattekill entrance to pay - I could have saved a chunk of time by leaving through the lot on Main Street, but I didn't realize I didn't have to pay on Sunday.  Why?  Because the only sign announcing the days and hours of operation is on Plattekill.

Good thing I didn't have to pay, because I would have had to return to my car to display my proof in the window.  Must be really convenient for a mother carting around two children, or someone with an arthritic knee, or anyone else with mobility issues that do not rise to the level of a handicapped parking permit.

It's also charming that the unsuspecting out-of-towner who finds the lot by way of Main Street may never know that they have to pay to park. They would drive in through a private, free lot which is likely full and naturally proceed into what appears to be an extension of that same lot, only with spaces available.  Considering the Village Board's intent was to provide more parking for the customers of area businesses, I don't think a surprise parking ticket is the sort of welcome that warms the heart.

I'd have to review the amount of money they pulled in on parking tickets and other revenue since the lot opened to be sure, but I think the village's short-term parking goals aren't exactly aligned with the needs of the Downtown Business Association, visitors to New Paltz, or people who just aren't in a position to walk very far.

Paradise Lost: death of a numbering scheme

When 36 Main opened I was very excited. It wasn't just a classy wine bar and place to eat, after all . . . it was a classy place that was using its address as its name. With 36 joining 60 Main, I envisioned a numbered New Paltz, with every business forgoing the clumsiness of names in favor of using its own address for a dual role.

We'd eat our pizza at 68 Main, maybe, or get it delivered from 4 NPP (New Paltz Plaza isn't quite as cool-sounding with numbers, but it's my dream, so I'm going to be consistent). That new deli/restaurant/caterer/food thing at 175 Main would continue to get interesting letters about it in the paper, and as a community we would decide the fate of old 196 Main and its kids. 25 Plattekill and 1 Veterans would form the hub of municipal activity, at least as long as the community continued gamble that two governments are better than one.

But my dream is shaken, and shaken hard. 60 Main is going to be changing its name soon, as Justin Holmes (best known for his legal battles against SUNY, which led to his frustration with the local judiciary and a run for town justice) is, with partner Amanda Stauble, turning into slash /root grassroots technology collective. Stauble describes the venture as a place where "you get a cup of coffee and sit to meet with a consultant. You can pay them by the half hour or the hour to sit with you and help you figure out what is wrong with your computer, or how to use a new program you're not familiar with, or work with them on designing a website for your business- what ever you need. Their only incentive is to make you like their work and effort and hope you come back next time you have a question or need services."

This is all well and good, but it shatters my dream of a new New Paltz order.

Friends, won't you sign this petition demanding a better New Paltz?

Will the Village Board please show up?

We've got a fiscal crisis in our little village, and it's a really controversial one. Terry Dungan unilaterally issued a spending freeze to all departments, including our firefighters, which has caused all manner of to-do. The fire cuts have the Town Council screaming even as they slash things like the library and the YMCA funding for similar reasons. People are pointing fingers, assessing figures, and laying blame.

Well, today I have a special request for the Village Board. I'd like you to show up.

Erin Quinn reports this week that when a motion to modify the controversial spending freeze came up before the Village Board, one that would have permitted department heads to make important purchases with approval, it failed. Here's how the vote went:

• Terry Dungan: aye.
• Patrick O'Donnell: aye.
• Jean Gallucci: nay.
• Shari Osborn: unable to be found at the time of the vote.
• Brian Kimbiz: didn't even show up.

I don't have a problem with a vote for or against, as I assume that any vote cast was done with some thought. I do have a problem with a vote this important failing because two board members weren't around to vote.

Here's a news flash: we elected you, and pay you, to show up and meetings and vote. That is what you are supposed to do. I understand that things come up, but maybe it's time to reassess your priorities.

I don't think expecting 95% attendance at meetings would be unreasonable. Things come up, and sometimes they're actually more important than the residents of the village. Missing one meeting a year should cover emergencies. If your life is such that this is unduly burdensome . . . maybe it's time to resign.

It's a tough job, it's an underpaid job, and it's a job that makes you a target more than it makes you a hero - and you all knew that when you decided to run. Make a commitment to show up. This is a small enough village that I don't think it would be that tough to make a really, really tough attendance policy the law, but I would rather see you just do your jobs.

This isn't personal - or rather, it's very personal when the lives of the people you have pledged to represent take short shrift because you just couldn't make it to the meeting, or you were far too busy to attend the entire thing. No, I have seen other former board members pull the same stunts, and it's time to suck it up and do your jobs.

On behalf of the village, I"m begging you - don't miss another meeting. We trusted you with the job, please . . . do it.

Metered Parking or Skinner Box?

Sometimes I'm slow in coming up with good responses to intelligent questions. Such was the case of the metering of the Plattekill Avenue parking lot.

I told Terry Dungan that I didn't like the idea of metering the lot, because the stated objective was to open up more parking downtown, but the means was just a way to increase revenue for the Village. I don't believe governments should use taxation and fees as a means of behavior modification - if you want us to do something differently, just make a law telling us what's what instead of hiding it behind a way to charge us more money.

Terry explained to me that to regulate the parking entirely with enforcement would be impossible, as the officer wouldn't have any way to keep track of who was parked where, and for how long. Chalking isn't really viable, and just walking around noting down plate numbers would take forever.

However, we've got that fancy new meter on the lot now, and I don't know why it needs to charge money in order to work. If it were set to free, it would still be able to allow people to type in their plate number, and it still would be able to print out a report for a parking enforcement officer of what spaces should be empty. It still could deny people the right to enter the same plate number for the same spot for two consecutive periods, and presumably it could still help the officer identify scammers who just lie about their plate numbers in order to park for a longer period of time.

If we were to take Jason's idea of building a hidden parking garage, the money would make more sense because it would be to pay for the building, but given that the Thruway was paid off in 1986 but still has tolls in 2009, I don't trust my politicians not to pull the same kind of shenanigans.

Therefore, I have to assume that the Village Board really wants the money, and doesn't have the nerve to just ask the citizens for it. Fees hidden in behavior modification are among some of the most offensive of governmental bait-and-switch tactics. If you don't want us parking, the technology exists to deter that behavior without charging us more money. If you want more money, the legal mechanisms exist to honestly and open raise taxes without hiding it in parking fees. It sure would be nice to separate the two so that we could transparently look at these unrelated issues.

Village Board: new election results!

The recount is in, and the results are a bit different:

Patrick O'Donnell still has 98 votes,
Brian Kimbiz now has 95, and
Pete Healey stays at 94.

The village clerk told me that one of Brian's votes was due to a counting error (more than I would have predicted), and the other three were write-ins the local election inspectors ruled invalid but the County deem overruled them on. I suggested that for future elections, it might be instructive if the announced count includes the number of votes thus invalidated. She agreed it was a good idea, but I don't know if there's any bizarre law that would prevent them from doing so in the future.

Pete is within his rights to challenge the results, but I do not know his intentions.

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.

Let's count that again!

News from the Village front: there will be a recount of last night's election tomorrow at 10AM, as requested by Brian Kimbiz. According to the deputy clerk, it will be in the small meeting room in Village Hall. Don't miss it!

Village Board Results 2009

I tried to be fancy, and wanted to show a video of the results here, but my camera and computer are no longer getting along, so we'll do it the old-fashioned way.

Patrick O'Donnell:  98

Pete Healey:  94

Brian Kimbiz:  91

Jason West:  25

Brittany Turner:  7

A few stray votes here and there

All in all, a good race.  I don't think anyone can complain about a stolen election (and yes, I really hate that kind of whining, even when my guy loses).  Brian Kimbiz, whose petititons were invalidated because he didn't realize that he needed to be registered here in order to witness the signatures, got every vote he deserved regardless, so I don't think he could argue that he would have gotten three or four more if he'd taken the time to understand the rules.  Jason West and Brittany Turner were offered up as last-minute write-ins and got a respectable number of votes, given that they were only being talked about for hours at best.

I don't buy the whole idea of a stolen election, but honestly, if you want someone to run for office, do you think you could ask them far enough in advance that they could run a campaign, if you really want them to win?  Both were gracious enough to let me know that they were no opposed to being written in, but both candidates could have made a real showing if they had taken the time to do it right.  

• Jason just got back in town and simply didn't have the time - he wasn't here for the petition period.  But if he wants to re-enter local politics, I think a thoughtful campaign would do him much better.  He is a politician, and each campaign he undertakes should be part of his larger strategy, whatever that may be.  It was just too impulsive to offer his name up.
  
• Brittany caught a lot of flack for daring to run, last minute, for Town Council.  This time, she's starting to look like the perennial write-in protest vote.  Brittany is extremely knowledgeable about the local scene, but has never had the opportunity to express her views in a candidate forum.  I think she's too intelligent to be tossed in the race at the last minute - let's see what she's got and actually vote on her stand on issues, not just for the fun of it.

I think some of the votes for write-in candidates may have been protest votes - people didn't like the names on the ballot and voted for someone they didn't actually believe would win.  That, in my view, is a waste of the democratic process.  If I had my way no candidates would be on the ballot and we would have to actually pay attention to know who to vote for, but I don't have my way very often.  Some very talented people were written in and could probably have won, given the opportunity for a serious campaign.  A lot of races in this town could be decided very differently if folks started thinking about them earlier than, oh, the day before the election.

Congratulations to the winners, and kudos to the incredibly respectable showings for the other candidates.  Now go play nice.

Unification isn't the real threat

It's not unification that is most likely to destroy the "way of life" people who live in the village want so desperately to protect - it's the lack of solvent taxpayers.

The village board is trying to find another $300,000 or so in budget cuts, and they're running out of things to even consider.  I was told that they might even consider laying people off - people like the ones that are busting their butts cleaning up after us this week.

I was dumbfounded that the situation is so serious, and asked if they had considered other options to keep the full work force, like furloughs and shortened work schedules and pay cuts.  Less of a job is better than none, I would think.  Apparently the unions don't see it that way, and they aren't willing to reopen the contracts.

Now I'm all for collective bargaining, but if this is true it's a case where the members are not being represented by their union.  How does it help anyone?  $300 might mean four to six people (I'm not sure exactly, because benefits have to be considered in the total employee cost) that are out of work.  It will probably mean the same reduction in services as any of the other options I asked about, but with more people jobless.

The only problem I have with collective bargaining is the idea that you can be required to be a member of the union.  This is why unions sometimes - often - don't have their members' interests at heart.  If employees could freely join and leave - and for that matter, freely create and dissolve a union - then groups like CSEA would see enrollment dip when employers are humans, and rise when they become monsters.  There's no reason why union membership needs to be a protected class, and there's plenty of reasons why it shouldn't.

I wonder if that's a contract negotiation point?