Community Advisory Committee Statement of 04/11/2011

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