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.
.png)
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
New Paltz school land vote
Today, New Paltz voters get a chance to decide if the schools will be able to buy some land. Community sentiment seems largely against the project, and some of the details I've learned today give me pause, while others really clear things up in my mind.
First, the bad. Whether the reasons for speed are good ones or not, this thing is moving too fast for people to digest it. Yes, most people prefer to vote uninformed, but they rely on those few who pay attention, and many of those are voting no because they don't know enough.
A real estate broker I know wonders about the soil test on this parcel, which was an orchard, I believe. Normally, she tells me, soil tests happen before the contract is signed, but in this case it's to be part of the contract. That makes her nervous, and me too. I don't know what happens if it turns out to be contaminated.
Another of my friends, a student at the high school, pondered instead using the capital reserve fund for middle school renovations. I think I can answer that, but first let me explain where this money is coming from.
The capital reserve fund was authorized by voters in 2005 -- the board can sock away up to $5 million for projects like renovating the middle school, although the most they've saved is $1.2 million. This is money not used in past years, for things like snow plowing, which the voters told them it's okay to save, rather than giving back to us. In my estimation, this is democratic (we voted), transparent (we know what it can be used for), and conservative (they can eliminate borrowing costs by spending money they have rather than money they don't have).
So why not the middle school? I'm thinking they don't have enough money to begin to fix those problems, and they're looking to a future without that building. I don't know that I like that attitude, but the community has spoken pretty loudly in the past.
The rationale behind the land grab is to allow for consolidation, building new near Lenape and pulling back from the middle school. It could make for a leaner district. Voting no won't get that money back, because we already told them they could take it. I'm not saying there aren't good reasons to vote no, but that's not one of them.
First, the bad. Whether the reasons for speed are good ones or not, this thing is moving too fast for people to digest it. Yes, most people prefer to vote uninformed, but they rely on those few who pay attention, and many of those are voting no because they don't know enough.
A real estate broker I know wonders about the soil test on this parcel, which was an orchard, I believe. Normally, she tells me, soil tests happen before the contract is signed, but in this case it's to be part of the contract. That makes her nervous, and me too. I don't know what happens if it turns out to be contaminated.
Another of my friends, a student at the high school, pondered instead using the capital reserve fund for middle school renovations. I think I can answer that, but first let me explain where this money is coming from.
The capital reserve fund was authorized by voters in 2005 -- the board can sock away up to $5 million for projects like renovating the middle school, although the most they've saved is $1.2 million. This is money not used in past years, for things like snow plowing, which the voters told them it's okay to save, rather than giving back to us. In my estimation, this is democratic (we voted), transparent (we know what it can be used for), and conservative (they can eliminate borrowing costs by spending money they have rather than money they don't have).
So why not the middle school? I'm thinking they don't have enough money to begin to fix those problems, and they're looking to a future without that building. I don't know that I like that attitude, but the community has spoken pretty loudly in the past.
The rationale behind the land grab is to allow for consolidation, building new near Lenape and pulling back from the middle school. It could make for a leaner district. Voting no won't get that money back, because we already told them they could take it. I'm not saying there aren't good reasons to vote no, but that's not one of them.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Are you voting April 10?
The school district's special vote to allow the purchase of land is coming up. I think the paper has done a pretty good job of laying out the reasons why they want to spend this money in this way right now, but from the letters and what people are telling me, either people aren't understanding or they really just don't agree.
From what I understand, this land purchase would be made with money the district already has, but can't use -- it's a reserved fund balance. The first question on the ballot will be to take care of the accounting, and allow the money to be used on real estate. The second actually gives them the green light to do it.
The board believes that this is the best way to give the community what it wants. More land will allow the district to consolidate by adding buildings there, replacing the decrepit middle school. That addresses the safety concerns of that old building, or at least opens the door to doing so, and it does it with money that can't be used to save teaching jobs or programs.
I think this is about communication more than anything else. I don't think this is a case of the board overreaching, but they are definitely hellbent to go through with this despite the strong negative reaction provided in their survey. Yes, a lot of land will come off the tax rolls. Down the line, maybe that prime middle school property will be put back on.
What do you think the tax consequences will be in the short and long runs? If you're voting, would you be willing to share your reasons for your vote?
From what I understand, this land purchase would be made with money the district already has, but can't use -- it's a reserved fund balance. The first question on the ballot will be to take care of the accounting, and allow the money to be used on real estate. The second actually gives them the green light to do it.
The board believes that this is the best way to give the community what it wants. More land will allow the district to consolidate by adding buildings there, replacing the decrepit middle school. That addresses the safety concerns of that old building, or at least opens the door to doing so, and it does it with money that can't be used to save teaching jobs or programs.
I think this is about communication more than anything else. I don't think this is a case of the board overreaching, but they are definitely hellbent to go through with this despite the strong negative reaction provided in their survey. Yes, a lot of land will come off the tax rolls. Down the line, maybe that prime middle school property will be put back on.
What do you think the tax consequences will be in the short and long runs? If you're voting, would you be willing to share your reasons for your vote?
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Cleaning up town hall
Anyone who had occasion to visit the town clerk's office in the decades prior to December, 2011, will be impressed by how the office now looks.
In addition to the lack of clutter out front, the clerk now has her own office in the back, in a room I am told was "floor to ceiling" packed with boxes, clothing, and a stunning amount of rubbish.
In addition to the lack of clutter out front, the clerk now has her own office in the back, in a room I am told was "floor to ceiling" packed with boxes, clothing, and a stunning amount of rubbish.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Looking at the police
The New Paltz Police Commission and town police department have been in the news a bit lately. The very existence of the commission hangs in the balance.
One area where nobody feels they're in control is that of contractual increases. Multi-year contracts get negotiated, and future budgets must simply accept their terms. So why do we do it this way? Why not instead only negotiate one-year contracts, as part of the budgeting process? Because it's too hard? Or because that way you can sell a bill of goods down to your successors and they will be able to throw up their hands and say, "It's the best we could do, because our hands are tied by the terms of this three-year-old contract." Is there anything in any law that would prevent our representatives from only negotiating single-year contracts, for police and all town employees? Is there anything to prevent the town from passing a law requiring only single-year contracts?
When I interviewed for a seat on the commission a couple of years ago, one council member said to me, "I don't care how many guys they're beating up in an alley." That official's priority was fiscal. So I say let's take the budgeting side and give it to the people who don't care who is getting beaten up (if anyone is), and let our citizen volunteers focus on protecting both citizens and officers from poor treatment and misinformation.
The commission could do quite a bit to enhance police-community relations. Officers have frequently told me that people know their "television rights" and not their "real rights." So let's educate people on the difference. Teach them how to behave during a police encounter, such that they exercise their rights without inadvertently escalating a situation. I had the now-Lieutenant once tell me not to film an intoxicated individual. I wasn't and didn't even have a camera, and frankly making a video of a guy puking on himself is pretty mean, but it's neither illegal nor is it unconstitutional. I personally believe he give an inappropriate order; the chief and I disagree on that point. The commission could preempt a lot of issues like these by clarifying departmental policies and educating the public about how officers will behave. Education and transparency make for a safe community.
Commission members recently requested access to the car-cams which record police activity. They are presently used for training purposes, not discipline, the chief told them. What a missed opportunity! Let's get these tapes into commission hands as soon as possible. In fact, let's raise the transparency bar, and make all police video recordings available unless there is a reason not to. Specifically, I would like to see a policy in which every video is posted online. The chief and perhaps some others would be able to keep any specific footage from public view, but the individual who makes the call must be identified, along with the reason for the redaction. That name and reason (which could be as simple as "evidence in an ongoing investigation") would be posted online in place of the video, and the footage would be reviewed annually to determine if the reason still held.
Sound like a lot of work? Shouldn't be. The officers know what goes down and could flag some encounters for review, and the rest would be posted automatically.
On a related note, police have recommended cameras in public places to help with safety and investigations. I don't mind being constantly under observation if the police don't. After all, as the owner of Jack's Deli remarked in this week's New Paltz Times, if you don't have anything to hide, there's no problem.
Let the board budget
Town board members are concerned that the commission hamstrings their ability to budget. I don't know the specifics, but if the commission's recommended police budget can't be changed before it's incorporated into the annual town budget, that would be bad. I don't want my elected officials to feel like they can blame volunteers if a budget decision proves unpopular. We should do whatever it takes to give our elected representatives the confidence they need when they vote on any aspect of the town budget.One area where nobody feels they're in control is that of contractual increases. Multi-year contracts get negotiated, and future budgets must simply accept their terms. So why do we do it this way? Why not instead only negotiate one-year contracts, as part of the budgeting process? Because it's too hard? Or because that way you can sell a bill of goods down to your successors and they will be able to throw up their hands and say, "It's the best we could do, because our hands are tied by the terms of this three-year-old contract." Is there anything in any law that would prevent our representatives from only negotiating single-year contracts, for police and all town employees? Is there anything to prevent the town from passing a law requiring only single-year contracts?
What role for the commission?
As for the police commission, this is a body which could do real good in the community if it didn't have to focus on the budget. I see real value in a group of citizen volunteers actively independently investigating allegations and publishing their findings. I've heard (and suspect it's true) that most complaints against officers are baseless; I think it could only help if we could see how often this is the case.When I interviewed for a seat on the commission a couple of years ago, one council member said to me, "I don't care how many guys they're beating up in an alley." That official's priority was fiscal. So I say let's take the budgeting side and give it to the people who don't care who is getting beaten up (if anyone is), and let our citizen volunteers focus on protecting both citizens and officers from poor treatment and misinformation.
The commission could do quite a bit to enhance police-community relations. Officers have frequently told me that people know their "television rights" and not their "real rights." So let's educate people on the difference. Teach them how to behave during a police encounter, such that they exercise their rights without inadvertently escalating a situation. I had the now-Lieutenant once tell me not to film an intoxicated individual. I wasn't and didn't even have a camera, and frankly making a video of a guy puking on himself is pretty mean, but it's neither illegal nor is it unconstitutional. I personally believe he give an inappropriate order; the chief and I disagree on that point. The commission could preempt a lot of issues like these by clarifying departmental policies and educating the public about how officers will behave. Education and transparency make for a safe community.
Cameras here and there
Commission members recently requested access to the car-cams which record police activity. They are presently used for training purposes, not discipline, the chief told them. What a missed opportunity! Let's get these tapes into commission hands as soon as possible. In fact, let's raise the transparency bar, and make all police video recordings available unless there is a reason not to. Specifically, I would like to see a policy in which every video is posted online. The chief and perhaps some others would be able to keep any specific footage from public view, but the individual who makes the call must be identified, along with the reason for the redaction. That name and reason (which could be as simple as "evidence in an ongoing investigation") would be posted online in place of the video, and the footage would be reviewed annually to determine if the reason still held.Sound like a lot of work? Shouldn't be. The officers know what goes down and could flag some encounters for review, and the rest would be posted automatically.
On a related note, police have recommended cameras in public places to help with safety and investigations. I don't mind being constantly under observation if the police don't. After all, as the owner of Jack's Deli remarked in this week's New Paltz Times, if you don't have anything to hide, there's no problem.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
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.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)