Taking back our police

This year's graduation weekend seemed louder than most -- I was awakened around 4:30 in the morning by the sounds of partying, partying so widespread that I couldn't even pinpoint its location.  It's rare that I call in a noise complaint, but I didn't want to have to wait until past sunrise to get back to sleep, so I didn't see another option.  I heard the police arrive and start using their amplification system to get the attention of the revelers, and the effect was like throwing water on an oil fire -- the kids got louder every time the cops spoke.  It took awhile to settle them down.

I suppose I could have called the university police instead, but experience tells me that they would have kept me on the phone longer (I wasn't asked my name or specific address, just where the noise was), and they would have been less helpful.  It's not that the men and women who work on that force are less professional, they just have zero obligation to respond to me, because they don't work for me. The town police do work for town residents, and the difference is striking.

Try this experiment, like I did a couple of years ago:  identify an intersection that is patrolled by both town and SUNY police, and try to submit a FOIL request for data about arrests and traffic stops nearby.  When I attempted this, the town police accepted my request, told me it could take up to seven days to process, and had my detailed report in less than two.  Over at SUNY, I spent fifteen minutes on the phone with a sergeant who interrogated me about what I wanted the data for, tried to talk me out of it, and wouldn't even give up the identity of the information officer for the college.  I was so aggravated that I submitted a written complaint about the SUNY officer, and a written compliment about the dispatcher to processed my request for the town.

The difference, of course, is that the town police has a citizen police commission, and five elected officials, overseeing it.  SUNY cops have . . . some kind of structure, which goes up the line to the chancellor or the state police, but with no input from the community.  Which might be fine, if they didn't patrol beyond the borders of the campus.

But the officers want to widen their jurisdiction even more, and statewide their union is holding communities hostage until the state legislature acts.  Here in New Paltz, they are no longer helping out with parade detail, although apparently they will still be handing out speeding tickets off-campus.  I imagine that's a money-maker for their department, while parades are not.

New Paltz Supervisor Susan Zimet is proud that she helped get the SUNY peace officers police powers some years ago.  I think it was a terrible idea.  We have a police force, entirely within the heart of our community, over which we have no control or oversight.  I'm sure the situation is the same for many campuses around the state.  I think it's time we lobby the state to change that.

Colleges don't need police, they need peace officers.  Some municipalities need police, particularly ones with colleges, and those campuses should be paying the town or village (or state, when no local force exists) to provide police protection of their grounds.  This would require a significant increase in our local police force, but it would be paid for by the college, and its existing officers could be folded into our present force.

SUNY New Paltz is a huge benefit to our community, but it comes at a price.  They don't pay taxes.  They don't have to ask for permission when they want to build.  They don't have to participate in the community, and under the past president, the one who mused that the residents of a prison town don't expect to use those facilities so why should we expect access to the college, that participation was muted.  That participation varies by administration, and that's a bigger problem.  The problem of the police is simpler to understand: we should have local control, and towns and villages with their own departments should be lobbying together to take that control back.

Enemies all around us

Trying to make advances in education in New Paltz is about as futile as the attempts of the Danaïdes to fill a tub with water to wash their sins away.  In fact, as this week's budget vote shows, even trying to minimize the cuts to education is mostly unacceptable.

Putting it another way, trying to ensure that New Paltz remains affordable for the people who live here and wish to use real estate as an investment in this community is damned near impossible.  In fact, as this week's budget vote shows, we very nearly saw an unacceptably large tax hike get shoved down our throats.

Two sides of the same coin, and it's the same old coin, despite the extra wrinkles thrown in by the tax cap.  Education is part of the long-term planning we make as a society, but that doesn't mean diddly to someone who is fighting to fend off foreclosure or only bought that house because they were told that rental income is "passive" in some alternate reality.

It's a crappy system.  New York State has abdicated its obligation under its own constitution to provide education, shifting it, as our spineless legislators always do, onto the local municipalities and taxpayers.  But even if the state did its job, that would not make the ballooning costs magically stop ballooning.

This anti-budget message went viral on Facebook.

What I think I'm seeing is related to the so-called anti-intellectualism movement, and might actually help me explain why that idea isn't entirely without merit.

This week's budget proposal exceeded the tax cap, and only 60% of those bold budgets got passed statewide, while something near 99% of the budgets within the cap requirements were approved.  Just as they did with the middle school renovation, the board worked really hard on explaining why they needed this money, how important it is, and what bad things would happen if this didn't pass.

And that's where the problem begins.  I don't think people are actually opposed to education, nor do I think people are really offended by intellectual pursuits, but boy do they hate snobbery.

Now I'm more educated that many Americans, and much less so than many New Paltz residents, and from where I stand it seems that each degree a person earns beyond the first has a chance of injecting some snobbery into their attitude.  The way it's expressed is through an unspoken message, "My idea is correct.  I know more than you do about this subject, so obviously if you disagree with me it's because you don't understand what I am saying.  There is no valid reason for you to disagree other than your own ignorance.  I shall try to explain this in small words your uneducated brain can understand, because once you do you will bow to my superior intellect."

The problem is, there are other points of view, and this approach dismisses those views as ignorant.  Given the amount of time that the board spends researching these subjects, it's understandable that they and their supporters (which include me) believe that this budget was the best possible option.  But to approach the problem as if you already have dismissed all of the arguments and this should be a foregone conclusion forgets one fact:

Their vote does not depend upon your knowledge.

Do I think it's sad that Highland's budget was defeated by people who can't spell?  I sure do.  But it wasn't defeated by people without education, it was defeated by people who vote.  The voters have the power to deny you what you want, and as Robert McNamara notes in The Fog of War, the best way to deal with that dynamic is to empathize with the enemy.  (I'm using "enemy" loosely here to describe the people who have the power to deny, in this case the school district voters.)

How much empathy was shown for the naysayers?  Did we:

• imagine the fear of someone on a fixed income who sees a tax increase which is twice the Social Security hike for the year?
• ask for their help in lobbying for a new way to fund education?
• talk to them about why we insist on negotiating multi-year contracts with the unions, which tie the hands of future boards by making up to 75% of the school budget contractual and thus untouchable?
• work with them to find ways the community can help make up for the quality programs that are being cut?

New Paltz sees itself as a battleground, and thus it is.  There will always be people without children living here, and people who only use properties to make money, and their views will always be exercised in the voting booth.  It may not be fair that this is the only local budget subject to such scrutiny, it's the system until we can get it changed, so maybe it's time to start empathizing with the enemy rather than just drawing new battle lines.

Dirty politics

Land is, by definition, dirty, and it's generally accepted that money doesn't mix easily with politics. So when there's a suspicion of shady land dealings by elected officials, it's fair to call it "dirty politics."

The scenario:  New Paltz Town Supervisor Susan Zimet and council member Kevin Barry had a meeting with schools superintendent Maria Rice, to discuss how the district could solve its facilities problems by expanding the high school campus.  I'm told that Rice claims that Zimet and Barry initiated the meeting, but that they disagree and claim it was Rice's idea.

The problem:  Barry owns a tract of land adjacent to the high school property, and could stand to gain if the district took his suggestion, and also decided that buying his land was the best way to do so.  Barry did disclose being a part owner of the parcel on this town financial disclosure form, and has voluntarily agreed not to sell it while in office.

The analysis:  I've been reviewing information about the underlying state ethics rules, and it seems pretty clear that Barry has created an "appearance of impropriety," which means that it looks like he's up to something.  Obviously, his promise not to sell while in office simply means he could resign if he got a good enough offer.  Or transfer his interest in a way that wouldn't legally be considered a sale, but would still allow him to profit.

But despite there being an appearance of impropriety, I don't believe that there's been an ethics violation.  Since an appearance of impropriety exists, Barry should recuse himself on this issue.  But it's not a town issue, so it will never come up.  In fact, even if Barry were actively trying to convince the district to buy his land, I don't think it would be an ethics violation, because his personal interest (selling the land) does not in any way conflict with his public interest (the residents and taxpayers of the town), at least not in the direct ways that the law requires.

There are a lot of reasons to be concerned about Barry's behavior in this case, but so far as I can tell he's done his homework, and hasn't done anything wrong in the law's eyes.  As I like to say, and all attorneys know, if you want to be able to wriggle out of something, make sure to put it in writing.

Kerr innocent of pot charges

At a press conference yesterday afternoon, Don Kerr said of the news that a grand jury will not indict him, "I don't feel exonerated, because I never felt onerated in the first place."

It may be hard to swallow for some people, but this means that Kerr is innocent, because under our system of justice, innocence is presumed unless guilt is proven.  The grand jury who reviewed testimony in this case didn't find that there was enough evidence to even bring a case against Kerr, which falls very far short of guilt indeed.

When the story of Kerr getting arrested for accepting a package containing eight pounds of pot first surfaced, a client of mine was quick to condemn him, and when I pointed out that it's best to let the courts, rather than gossip, try to convict him, I probably went too far, because I have never worked for that client again.

That we, the highly educated and progressive citizens of New Paltz, are so quick to throw the rights of another human being under the bus sickens me.  This community is rife with hypocrisy.

One man whom Kerr singled out to thank, and whom is not guilty of such hypocrisy in this case, is Martin McPhillips.  "I don't know the man, and apparently he doesn't like me, but he stood and and said something doesn't smell right here, and I appreciate that."

At the core of this story is the fact that our federal government provides incentives to police for drug offenses, whether or not they are violent.  There are no laws which allow for the seizure of assets from a man who beats his kids, or a woman who writes bad checks.  Our elected officials don't lose their ill-gotten gains if they're caught with a hand in the cookie jar.  But drug offenses are big money for law enforcement.

Kerr was quick to praise the New Paltz police for its professionalism in this case, and I certainly agree with his assessment.  However, I'd like to see our town take a stand and reject this unbalanced incentives, and instead focus on crimes that matter.  Violent crimes.  Crimes which cause the loss of life, liberty, or property.  Abuse.  Driving under the influence.  Graffiti.  Theft.  Vandalism.  Not all drug offenses are dangerous crimes, and not all dangerous crimes are drug offenses.  Let's start focusing on the stuff that matters, instead of targeting a man who did a damned fine job as school board president.

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.

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.

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?