Click on this link to view the document in its original pdf format:
CAC Statement of 4/11/2011
CAC Statement FINAL 041111
This statement is respectfully submitted to the New Paltz
Government Efficiency and Effectiveness Study Working
Group (WG) (renamed during the project as the Steering
Committee) and the Community Advisory Committee
(CAC) co-chairs, signed by seven CAC members.
We, the undersigned, have grave concerns about the study
process and product to date. Concerning process, the WG
rejected the CAC’s request to hold evening meetings, to
provide detailed meeting minutes, including rationales for
major decisions, and to abide by the Core Values for Public
Participation guidelines (International Association for
Public Participation; http://www.iap2.org).
The study proposal, which was submitted to the New York Core Values for the Practice of Public Participation
1. Public participation is based on the belief that those who are
affected by a decision have a right to be involved in the decision-
making process.
2. Public participation includes the promise that the public's
contribution will influence the decision.
3. Public participation promotes sustainable decisions by recognizing
and communicating the needs and interests of all participants,
including decision makers.
4. Public participation seeks out and facilitates the involvement of
those potentially affected by or interested in a decision.
5. Public participation seeks input from participants in designing how
they participate.
6. Public participation provides participants with the information they
need to participate in a meaningful way.
7. Public participation communicates to participants how their input
affected the decision.
CAC Statement FINAL 041111
State High Priority Planning Grant program as part of the
grant application, clearly states, “Concrete processes and
strategies will be incorporated into the process in order to
communicate facts and promote a dialogue that will
facilitate a high level of civic engagement.” The RFP for
the project also states, in bold, “An enhanced public
involvement plan to promote wide scale participation in the
process is required.”
Despite these guidelines, from the start, there has been a
lack of public participation and clarity about the CAC’s
role in that public process. One CAC member asked, “Is the
CAC expected to merely inform the public of decisions, or
will the public be invited to engage in meaningful
participation?” Another said, “I thought our job was to
gather public input [in order to] inform the process of the
study, not to just garner support for its conclusions.”
To further the goal of public participation, the grant
application specifically required the creation of a project
website to facilitate information-sharing between the WG,
CAC, and community at large. In addition, the application
stated, “Dedicated pages on both municipalities’ websites
will provide a record of the study progress and include
links to all relevant documents.” The website, through the
members-only Ning site, failed to meet the basic access
needs of many members, continues to have multiple
outstanding and unanswered questions, and supplies
limited, unclear documentation to outline the process as it
has unfolded. Requests from the CAC for additional
CAC Statement FINAL 041111
information and better explanations have also been denied.
The Village and Town were complicit in these obstacles to
public access, failing to even link to the site until the
project had been underway for months, and never providing
additional resources. While the consultants have repeatedly
suggested that questions, comments, and suggestions be
funneled through the website, their responses have been
exceedingly slow or, more frequently, absent altogether.
Whether deliberate or unintentional, this failure to engage
the public has led us to feel that the WG is secretive and
disinterested in process. These concerns were reinforced
when the WG chose not to release the draft report to the
public. Perhaps as a result of this decision, not one CAC
member commented on the substance of the draft report,
either due to stated issues with the lack of disclosure (at
least four members voiced this concern), or speculatively,
disengagement due to lack of clear process and
transparency. One CAC member stated, “I hardly think it's
fair to presume that this relatively small group can
adequately represent the diverse perspectives of all of New
Paltz, when all of New Paltz has not had any opportunity to
review such a document.” Another member said, “How can
there be such a recommendation when the information
leading up to this conclusion has not been disclosed to the
CAC, let alone the public? This whole report is lacking
public input. There should not have even been a draft
without public input.”
In terms of product, while the work to date has included a
CAC Statement FINAL 041111
thorough analysis of dollars (efficiency), there has been
barely any discussion about governance (effectiveness). We
refer again to the study proposal, which states, “[T]his
project will not only review opportunities for efficiency, it
will also consider all potential governance models.”
Although the WG has discussed some governance models,
none of these discussions included or even considered
public feedback. The draft report rejects many possibilities
(e.g., city, village dissolution, a model of our own design,
status quo) without any public discussion. This process and
the conclusions concerning possible governance models fly
in the face of the study proposal, which states, “[t]his
neutral feasibility study will not presume any preconceived
outcome, and instead will consider all options, including
the prospect of alternatives not currently defined by law
and the option of continuation of the existing structure(s).”
The proposal also says, “Dissent will be an acknowledged
component of the discourse and will not be an impediment
to the process.” We feel strongly that our dissent and our
concerns (which have been expressed repeatedly to you)
have been ignored. Furthermore, we deeply hope that the
WG will recognize our commitment to this project, and will
listen to and act on our constructive criticisms. We want to
be ambassadors for this project, but as one member noted,
“the CAC can only act as translators if they are informed.
Information on the process thus far and decisions that have
been made are not readily accessible in its entirety.”
CAC Statement FINAL 041111
Lastly, since the CAC, to date, has provided no feedback to
the WG on the substance—only on process—of the report,
we respectfully request that the language that the CAC
provided “input and involvement” on the draft report be
deleted. Perhaps if the process improves, then the final
report can properly acknowledge the contribution of the
CAC. The CAC has been eager and prepared to contribute,
however it is impossible to do so when the group has not
been given the authority, autonomy, or information
necessary to fulfill the expectations outlined in the original
proposal.
In closing, we wish to make clear that we have a desire to
provide the citizens of New Paltz with the information
necessary to make sound, reasoned, and informed decisions
about improving the efficiency and effectiveness of our
government. We have made it clear that to do so, we must
engage the public early and often. Failure to do so will
almost surely result in rancor, discontent, and mistrust. In
this regard the CAC accurately reflects the sentiments of
the community.
Signed,
John Logan Ira Margolis
Amanda Sisenstein Caryn Sobel
KT Tobin Brittany Turner
Michael Zierler
