letter to the editor by michael russo 3-1-2013

Letter to the Editor, New Paltz Times by Michael Russo, March 1, 2013

At the February 21 Joint Town/Village Board Meeting, Dr. Gerald Benjamin stated, in response to a question by Kitty Brown, that funding for the Citizen Empowerment tax credits that would allow a consolidated government to obtain up to $1 million in state funding, has been appropriated in the State Budget.

This is accurate but one has to know that appropriations expire at the end or soon after the end of every fiscal year budget regardless of how much money was spent (NY Finance Law Sec 40.3). If the next year's budget does not renew the appropriation, the funding is gone.

The State’s fiscal year starts April 1, and the Governor's proposed budget is still being debated in the legislature. Even if the Citizen's Empowerment tax credits are approved this coming fiscal year, this is no guarantee for subsequent years.

Dr. Benjamin also stated: "The criticism on relying on state funds is the point that KT Tobin raised earlier, that the state has been unreliable about persisting in the amount of money it gives to local governments over time. But you have to act on the law as you understand it and as you expect it to unfold -- you can't say that the state lies and therefore we can't proceed, or has lied in the past and we can't proceed -- or at least I think we can't say that."

However, if the state fails to continue the availability of Citizen Empowerment tax credits in future years, it will not mean that the state has lied. State Finance Law Sec. 54p does not make any representation that the Citizen Empowerment tax credits will continue year after year, because the law includes the phrase "within the annual amounts appropriated there-for,” which means "only if in the current budget." The State would only be lying if it didn't provide the funds in a given year when the appropriation was already made. There is no guarantee in the State Law that these funds will be appropriated in future years.

If we proceed as Dr. Benjamin suggests, i.e. "to act on the law as you understand it and as you expect it to unfold", then aside from the current fiscal year and this coming year if the legislature approves the Governor's budget, it is anyone's guess as to how the future of the Citizen Empowerment tax credits will unfold.

But in terms of that guess, let’s remember that a few weeks ago in a letter to this newspaper, it was pointed out by authors Tobin, Portier and Preston that state aid to the town and village has dropped precipitously since 2008, from 9% of revenues in 2008 to 4% of revenues in 2011. And a similar decline in aid has occurred for our school district. Such cuts are being experienced in municipalities and school districts all over the state. For me, this is a powerful signal that the Citizen Empowerment tax credit incentive program has a very limited lifespan indeed.

letter to the editor by guy thomas kempe 2-19-2013

Dear Editor:

The grant application titled New Paltz Municipalities: High Priority Planning for Efficient & Effective Government as submitted in 2009 to the NY Department of State secured financial resources to develop a “neutral feasibility study” of “merger, consolidation, dissolution and shared services.” The application asserted that both Village and Town residents will “have the facts and analytical information necessary to make an informed decision about the best governance structure at the most efficient cost” along with eight specific objectives; (1) public participation; (2) assessments of assets and liabilities; (3) short and long term fiscal implications; (4) resolutions and legislation needed to advance recommendations; (5) a calendar and schedule for implementation; (6) a metric to evaluate quality of services and costs; (7) a white paper to provide a model for other communities, and; (8) an application request to the state for implementation funding.

To date, I have been unable to locate a comprehensive and reliable source of information on either municipal website to facilitate my participation in the project. While some documents are available on the village website, the town website currently announces that the “Next working group meeting of the Government Efficiency Project is May 9, 2011, 9 am at Village Hall.”

The Planning Grant identified the following deliverables; (1) Dedicated pages on both municipalities website to provide a record of the study progress and include links to all relevant documents (FAIL); (2) Facilitation of community involvement (FAIL); (3) Analytical study of all options, including the costs, benefits and liabilities of current municipal structures, alternative models and shared services (Not found); (4) Written resolutions and legislation necessary to move forward with recommended scenarios (Not found); (5) A calendar and schedule to proceed (Not found); (6) A final Feasibility Study with Implementation Outlines (Not found); (7) A metric to be used over time to evaluate delivery of better governance (Not found); (8) White paper to evaluate the process and provide informed guidance for other communities (Not found), and; (9) Application for implementation funding partnership (Not found.)

Despite what I trust are best efforts by leaders and volunteers working on the issue, it is clear that we have a long way to go before the facts and analytical information necessary for the public to make an informed decision about any proposal to change local government structure can be evaluated.
-GTK

joint letter to the editor 2/20/13, twelve signers

Letter to the editor 2/20/13

Four out of five members of both the Town and Village Boards have resolved to create a public vote in the near future on whether to consolidate the Village and Town of New Paltz into a single municipality operating according to Village government laws. That may or may not be a good thing. Since Villages and Towns operate under completely different systems, there is much to consider regarding how elections would operate, whether it will cost money or save money, how it will affect zoning and planning, whether we have sufficient facilities to combine all departments, what it would cost in construction and renovation if we don't, and how it would impact public and employee safety, infrastructure maintenance, and other required services. And yes, we need to know what it's going to do to our taxes. That's the bare minimum of the information necessary in order to cast our votes.

Unfortunately, after two years of study, we have answers to exactly none of this. We also have been shown a considerable amount of information purported to support claims of substantial savings, but nearly all of it is clearly due to ordinary service cuts that have nothing to do with efficiencies made possible by consolidation, and savings that have already happened with the Town and Village separate. Reviews of emails and videos of conversations between the members of the committee that prepared the financial reports show that in most cases decisions of what to include and exclude were made on the basis of what was likely to "sell" consolidation.

This is not, and never has been about personalities, or about some people being resolved to oppose consolidation no matter what. We have been very specific in our questions, working with the figures brought forth by the study committees. In every case we have been met by "watch the videos," "you don't have the skill to question what we've presented," and flat-out refusal to respond. There have been no substantive answers provided at all. None.

We have started researching the information on our own. We are doing this in a quantifiable, verifiable way that will be open to public scrutiny. Some of this is already available, with official source material, at http://newpaltzfactcheck.com/. As we develop our findings, we will present them at public forums, and we invite all interested persons to participate, challenge, and learn. In the meantime, we encourage all of you to ask these questions, and any others you may have, of the Town and Village Boards.

Mark Portier
Guy Thomas Kempe
Steve Casa
Feebe Greco
KT Tobin
Stephanie Olear
Steve Greenfield
Kathy Preston
Greg Olear
John Logan
Rebecca Rotzler
Keith Woodburn

letter to the editor by mike russo 2/15/2013

NP Times Letter to the Editor – Mike Russo 2-15-2013

When an auto dealer tells us “this car is terrific, it gets amazing gas mileage, it never breaks down, and this is the lowest price you’ll ever see”, we know we are hearing sales puff.  But sometimes we get taken along anyway because their enthusiasm for the car makes us want it too.  Indeed the best sales people may well be those who actually believe in what they are telling us – their own exuberance and faith in their product may persuade us, even while reason whispers for us to take what we hear with a grain of salt.

I wish this same element wasn't in play when it comes to the financial information we have been receiving from many of our elected officials and Fiscal Committee members regarding their current consolidation report.  But their tendency to perceive and relate the economic implications of consolidation in the rosiest shades of optimism has been troubling.

Case in point at the Information Meeting held on February 11:  Former Supervisor Lent and Trustee Rhoads said repeatedly that if merger of Town and Village occur, we will get a $1 million Citizen Empowerment Grant EVERY YEAR. Why? Because it’s in the law, they say.

Well, that sounds great. Unfortunately it is inaccurate.

 “The New Government Reorganization and Citizen Empowerment Act,” was enacted “to provide a process for citizens to petition for a public vote on dissolving or consolidating local governments.” It improves and clarifies a process for consolidation and dissolution. There is no mention of grants or tax credits in this Act.

Separate changes to the State Finance Law (Section 54-p) were initiated to provide a “citizen empowerment” tax credit incentive for local governments to consolidate or dissolve.  However, this is a budgetary measure as it includes the language “within the annual amounts appropriated there-for.” This means that the tax credit incentive can only continue every year if provision for such tax credits is included in the state budget every year.  Incentive programs like these go by the wayside regularly whenever the Legislature or Governor no longer wants to fund them.

The question should be: “How long will this tax credit program be funded?”  It was funded last year and in this current budget year of 2012-2013. Governor Cuomo includes it in his proposal for budget year 2013-2014, but this is yet to be approved by the Legislature. The Government Reorganization and Citizen Empowerment Act itself was a pet project of Governor Cuomo when he was still Attorney General.  It’s typical for ambitious politicians to introduce flashy programs to promote themselves, and add to their list of achievements, and certainly we all are aware of the aspirations of our present Governor.  He wants the initiative to be a success. But let’s consider how the tax credit program may play from the point of view of State Senators and Assembly Members, who will decide every year whether to fund it.  Over half of towns in New York State have no villages. How long before members of the Senate and Assembly get an earful from many towns about how unfair it is that a neighboring town is getting a huge tax credit and they’re not?  Consider just our neck of the woods: Esopus, Gardiner, Lloyd, Plattekill, Rochester, Rosendale – none of these towns have villages with which to merge and get a piece of the large tax credit pie offered by this program.

So there’s a fairness problem with regard to this program that is likely to erode the support of many legislators. As well, this program excludes New York City, so it’s unlikely that the city’s representatives will provide any bedrock support for the tax credit program. Add to that the current budgetary stress of the State government, and there’s good reason to wonder how long this program will last. Will the $1 million tax credit remain in the budget for one more year or three years or five years? Will it be amended such that it is chopped in half next year, or limited to only one or two years per municipality? It’s anyone’s guess.

My point here is to urge those who are pressing very hard for consolidation to quit painting a picture of the best of all possible worlds – in this case a wonderful world where the state gives our village/town a $1 million tax break every year, when in fact the likely picture is different. There is very good reason to question the longevity of the tax credit.

Another example from the February 11 meeting:  The Fiscal Committee estimates that the merged Town and Village could operate at the same level of Board costs (stipends and contractual) as the Town alone. Mr. Lent told me that it was possible because all the time spent on each Board discussing issues involving the other Board would be eliminated. Well, that’s an interesting argument and the way Mr. Lent tells it, you want to believe him, but if the two boards have similarly-sized workloads, it would mean that over the years approximately half of each board’s time has been taken up with New Paltz intergovernmental issues. From my inquiries to several people who have served in Village and Town government, this was not the case – over the years, in general, Village-Town issues have been at most modest topics amidst all trustee or council work. It seems more reasonable to anticipate that the workload for a merged Village/Town board might be somewhat less than the combined workloads of each board, but certainly more than either board currently handles. Furthermore, there has been some talk of having a six member Board plus Mayor/Supervisor.

My point here is the same as above:  I put it to the Fiscal Committee that they should be conservative in their estimates of savings; not extremely optimistic as is the case with this and many of their spreadsheet figures. 

letter to the editor by steve greenfield 2/7/2013

Letter to the Editor of the New Paltz Times, and sent to all 10 Village/Town board members
by Steve Greenfield, 2/7/2013

How much more of this are we going to take, New Paltz?

Susan Zimet, in her brook-no-questions zeal to merge the Town and Village as quickly as possible before she registers to vote at her actual home in Gardiner, where she won't have a share of the consequences of her haste, blindsided the two governments last week with a proposal to skip over going out to bid for an unbiased review of her epic fail of a financial report by proposing, with no advance notice, but with resolution-ready text in hand, to have the review done not by an accountant, but by a lawyer. And not someone with no financial stake or personal associations with the Town, Village, or its officials and employees, but someone in whom those ties and conflicts of interest are maximized -- Kenneth Bond. The two boards then voted to expend funds engaging Mr. Bond to start by advising them on legal matters pertaining to the operations of a coterminous "town-wide village," pending another vote to expend even more funds on his review of the financial projections. Supervisor Zimet is hard-selling these no-bid consultancies on the grounds that Mr. Bond, having been involved, for pay, in legal and financial matters with both boards in recent times, knows both the bookkeeping and officials of both boards well, supposedly streamlining the review process. But she deliberately left out a critical matter of which, on the two boards, only she and equally aggressive consolidation advocate, and former Deputy Mayor Sally Rhoads was aware: Kenneth Bond was involved in the creation of the report that is currently under challenge. Consultation with Ken Bond during the report's creation was referenced in emails exchanged between the members of the Financial Committee, including Susan Zimet and Sally Rhoads. This alone must completely rule out any further role for him in the process of vetting the methodology or the results. He's inside the product. The idea of steering taxpayer funds into his pocket for this purpose is utterly wrong. They did not reveal his contribution to the process to their fellow board members before the vote. They still have not. Thankfully, this is why the Freedom of Information law exist, and luckily, it's been used. Hopefully, the information will motivate people to act.

But the depth to which Ken Bond is embedded in Supervisor Zimet's long-term personal and political ambitions goes further still. Many of us remember that this is the same Ken Bond whom Supervisor Zimet brought to government meetings to help her sell the idea of buying the Middle School to re-purpose it as a government center. But it turns out that his political relationship with Supervisor Zimet predates his professional engagement by New Paltz. Mr. Bond was of counsel during the 2011 Ulster County Legislature debates over the sale of the Golden Hill Senior residence, on the side of interrupting the sale -- one of Ms. Zimet's final efforts as a county legislator before she bailed out to seek the Democratic Committee appointment to become Town Supervisor. If it were possible to draw up a list of consultants who, as a matter of propriety, are absolutely ruled out as eligible to take part -- particularly in receipt of taxpayer funds, which must always be used in an impartial manner -- in further review of New Paltz consolidation research, that list would have just one name on it: Kenneth Bond. Small wonder that Supervisor Zimet wants him on the job to the exclusion of even seeking bids from other candidates. It's up to us to stop it. We're way past "this has gone far enough," and well into "this has gone way too far." Contact your Town and Village Board trustees and demand that Ken Bond not be used for any further consultations on any matter related to consolidation, and that only truly impartial review be sought through a standard Request For Proposal (RFP) outreach, and bidding process.

Steve Greenfield
New Paltz

letter to the editor by mike russo 2/2/2013

Letter to the Editor of the New Paltz Times:  Mike Russo 2/2/2013

Many in the public may have the impression that consolidation will deliver large budgetary savings and lower taxes for everyone, but in fact, these savings claims are unsubstantiated.

Regarding the Fiscal Consolidation Committee’s report, several board members in the last few meetings have made confusing or misleading comments that the report’s numbers were audited figures. For example, at the Jan 30^th meeting, Councilman Barry stated “I don’t think we need to go back and re-audit what’s been audited.” It’s true that the Committee worked from numbers drawn from the 2011 Town and Village audited reports. But in no way does this make their estimates audited figures as well. The Committee examined the various expense lines of both town and village and estimated possible savings that could arise from consolidation. No outside accounting firm reviewed these figures of estimated savings or the methods of such estimations.  The Committee’s numbers are unaudited claims of savings.

Since the report was released on January 9, 2013, a number of people have examined the Fiscal Committee’s estimates of savings and identified a multitude of flaws and inaccuracies with their numbers. Approximately 18%of the total savings, that is $300,000, is related to the Police expense line, and has nothing to do with consolidation. A lot of scrutiny has been directed to the claimed DPW savings of $520,077, which is 32% of the total savings. Cuts already made in DPW lines in the Town 2013 budget are being counted as consolidation savings. When reductions in the Town 2013 budget were announced last year, credit was taken for the board’s good work in reducing costs. Consolidation was not mentioned. At the end of the December 3, 2012 Committee meeting, the Town Supervisor stated that whether or not consolidation takes place, "I can say that the reductions that are reflected in here from the town - those reductions are here to stay."  Yet more recently, the Supervisor has said that many of those reductions were made in anticipation of consolidation. From viewing discussions of the DPW savings line in Committee meeting videos, and comments from others, including those who had follow-up conversations with the Village DPW and Town Highway Superintendents, my sense is that the Committee’s claimed DPW savings from consolidation is unrealistic high. A thorough facilities analysis is lacking so the Committee’s suggestion that Town Hall could be eliminated is not supported.  As well, an arithmetic error in the Committee’s spreadsheet creates an overall discrepancy of about $200,000 in claimed DPW savings. Most of the other savings estimates in the report have also been critically questioned.

There are several other problems here. One is that the Fiscal Consolidation Committee’s claim of large savings and lowered taxes for all contradicts the findings of the 2011 Fairweather study. That study stated that “there is little if any true duplication of services in the Town and Village” and “… restructuring through consolidation is not an effective means for overall reduction of the cost of local government.”  Two, the Committee is comprised of consolidation advocates, and the element of bias appears in their discussions – this necessitates that their report be verified by an objective party. Three, the Committee’s claim of significant overall savings has been reprised by the press, and thereby to the public, at least since November 2012. For example, this paper on 11/9/2012 quoted Trustee Rhoads as stating “We have come up with right now a $1.4 million savings should the village and town merge.”  It is critical to determine if the public has been misinformed, and if so, then the facts in the public domain need to be corrected. Four, some board members now want to move away from the Committee’s report altogether and hire a law firm to produce new financial estimates. Choosing a law firm instead of an accounting firm is unwise. In addition, the proposed law firm has had discussions with local elected officials about being hired to guide the community through the consolidation process. This would be the wrong approach and may represent a conflict for that law firm.

To clear the air about these projected savings, we must engage an accounting firm to audit the Committee’s report. The firm should have done no prior work for the Town or Village and should have no other conflicts of interest. The auditors should be provided with the Committee’s work documents and all of the critical analysis that the public has generated since the report was released. CPAs work with a fairly defined set of rules and principles in performing analysis. CPAs often employ several different estimation approaches, and use these complementary approaches to close in on a probable result. We need accounting, not legal, analysis; this is a job for an accounting firm, not a law firm.

letter to the editor by steve greenfield 2-7-2013

Letter to the Editor by Steve Greenfield -- February 7, 2013

How much more of this are we going to take, New Paltz?

Susan Zimet, in her brook-no-questions zeal to merge the Town and Village as quickly as possible before she registers to vote at her actual home in Gardiner, where she won't have a share of the consequences of her haste, blindsided the two governments last week with a proposal to skip over going out to bid for an unbiased review of her epic fail of a financial report by proposing, with no advance notice, but with resolution-ready text in hand, to have the review done not by an accountant, but by a lawyer. And not someone with no financial stake or personal associations with the Town, Village, or its officials and employees, but someone in whom those ties and conflicts of interest are maximized -- Kenneth Bond. The two boards then voted to expend funds engaging Mr. Bond to start by advising them on legal matters pertaining to the operations of a coterminous "town-wide village," pending another vote to expend even more funds on his review of the financial projections. Supervisor Zimet is hard-selling these no-bid consultancies on the grounds that Mr. Bond, having been involved, for pay, in legal and financial matters with both boards in recent times, knows both the bookkeeping and officials of both boards well, supposedly streamlining the review process. But she deliberately left out a critical matter of which, on the two boards, only she and equally aggressive consolidation advocate, and former Deputy Mayor Sally Rhoads was aware: Kenneth Bond was involved in the creation of the report that is currently under challenge. Consultation with Ken Bond during the report's creation was referenced in emails exchanged between the members of the Financial Committee, including Susan Zimet and Sally Rhoads. This alone must completely rule out any further role for him in the process of vetting the methodology or the results. He's inside the product. The idea of steering taxpayer funds into his pocket for this purpose is utterly wrong. They did not reveal his contribution to the process to their fellow board members before the vote. They still have not. Thankfully, this is why the Freedom of Information law exist, and luckily, it's been used. Hopefully, the information will motivate people to act.

But the depth to which Ken Bond is embedded in Supervisor Zimet's long-term personal and political ambitions goes further still. Many of us remember that this is the same Ken Bond whom Supervisor Zimet brought to government meetings to help her sell the idea of buying the Middle School to re-purpose it as a government center. But it turns out that his political relationship with Supervisor Zimet predates his professional engagement by New Paltz. Mr. Bond was of counsel during the 2011 Ulster County Legislature debates over the sale of the Golden Hill Senior residence, on the side of interrupting the sale -- one of Ms. Zimet's final efforts as a county legislator before she bailed out to seek the Democratic Committee appointment to become Town Supervisor. If it were possible to draw up a list of consultants who, as a matter of propriety, are absolutely ruled out as eligible to take part -- particularly in receipt of taxpayer funds, which must always be used in an impartial manner -- in further review of New Paltz consolidation research, that list would have just one name on it: Kenneth Bond. Small wonder that Supervisor Zimet wants him on the job to the exclusion of even seeking bids from other candidates. It's up to us to stop it. We're way past "this has gone far enough," and well into "this has gone way too far." Contact your Town and Village Board trustees and demand that Ken Bond not be used for any further consultations on any matter related to consolidation, and that only truly impartial review be sought through a standard Request For Proposal (RFP) outreach, and bidding process.

Steve Greenfield
New Paltz

Letter to the editor, 3 authors 2-3-2013

Letter to the editor, coauthored with Mark Portier & Katherine Preston 

The so-called “Fiscal Cliff” is both manufactured and self-inflicted. In the 1940s-50s, the top federal marginal individual income tax rate was 80-90 percent. In the 1960s-70s, it hovered around 70 percent until it fell to 28 percent under President Reagan. President Clinton was able to restore some ground, and President Obama has fought for restoration to Clinton-era levels in the 36 to 39 percent range. Today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is cresting near 14,000, an all-time high, while nearly 50 million Americans live in poverty and we have one of the highest child poverty rates among developed nations.

Meanwhile, here at home in New Paltz our property taxes have been rising while we’ve been cutting budgets and reducing services. In the late 1980’s, the state-provided portion of our school budget was 40 percent. Up until 2009, it ranged from 30-40 percent, but for the past three years, state contribution has dropped to 25 percent. As the state has disinvested in public education, the burden has been pushed to local taxpayers. So the school district cuts programs, negotiates for union concessions (obtaining more than any other district in the county), fires teachers and staff, and contemplates closing schools, all while the number of students — and our tax bills — increase. Anything that is not state mandated is in danger of being cut; not because we don't want these things for our children, don't believe in education, or don’t want to invest in our future, but simply because there is no money.

There’s been a similar pattern of state disinvestment in local government. In 2008, state aid for the village was $376,891, 9 percent of revenues; by 2011, it dropped to $182,023, 4 percent of revenues. Similarly, state aid for the town in 2008 was $899,108, 9 percent of revenues. By 2011, this fell to $442,062, 4 percent of revenues. During this same time period, the local tax levy increased in the both the village and town by 4 percent (seemingly, to make up the difference) while actual expenditures decreased by 14 percent in the village; but in contrast, town spending increased by 8 percent.

We are chopping up the kitchen table to keep the house warm. Since 2009, our school district has eliminated 69.8 teacher and staff positions. Last year, school spending decreased (by .7 percent) in tandem with a 24.5 staff reduction. Yet, property taxes increased 3.4 percent and over 50 new students moved into our district. The situation is just as dire within our municipalities: we’re paying more for less. For example, the 2013 town budget eliminated four positions ($320K) and $200K in materials from the highway department, clearly without any reduction in the miles of roads to be serviced. Some town board members have proposed closing Moriello Pool and eliminating funding for our police department. Majorities on the village and town boards are pushing for consolidation, which may result in more reductions in services without reducing taxes, or in an inequitable tax restructuring. And the school board is constructing a 2013-14 budget that is sure to include many cuts, while compiling a long-term plan that very possibly could include closing one or more of our schools.

How long can we sustain “fiscal cliff-ing” what we have built up? We need to radically change who and what we tax, and how we fund. We need a system of taxation that is fair and takes into account the ability to pay. We must let our elected leaders know we need to tax wealthy Americans who have not paid their fair share in decades. From Albany, we need reinvestment in schools and municipalities and real mandate relief. We need to push for legislation like the circuit breaker bill or the stock transfer tax, to pave the way for progressive taxation. Taxation needs to remove the burden of underfunded essential services from homeowners, retirees, and poor people and place it equitably upon the shoulders of all stakeholders. Those that can afford to pay taxes – federal, state, local – must do so. It is vital to the social contract. Social and economic justice must not take a backseat to the interests of the few.

Do you want leadership that will continue to dismantle what we have — or work to create fair governance and taxation for a thriving community? Citizen engagement is essential for our government to work well and to be responsive to the populace. Please attend town, village, and school board meetings to see what leaders are planning. Find out what is at stake and be a part of a solution-oriented process. In the words of Alice Walker, “We are the ones we have been waiting for.” Pay attention and chime in. We are in crisis. The time is now.

KT Tobin, Mark Portier, and Kathy Preston
New Paltz

letter to the editor from nikki nielson

To the New Paltz Community,

In the late winter/ early Spring of 2009, I worked with Town and Village officials and community leaders to develop the grant application to study the best structure and services that the New Paltz government could provide. That grant led to a feasibility study, discussion, analysis, and ultimately to the decision of whether to move forward with a "new" New Paltz. This discussion was not new four years ago - it has been a part of the fabric of our community, and an underlying tension in New Paltz across generations, spanning several decades.  

The grant application acknowledged our community's strengths and weaknesses, showing Albany that we knew this was going to be a tough process to undergo. The goal (the  quotes that follow are direct text excerpts from the application we sent to the state, and the basis for providing the funding) of the project was to "help the public distinguish between fact and rhetoric in order to develop and contribute informed opinion and participation."  This understanding was to be achieved through "discourse [that] will now have the benefit of an actual, organized research process and concrete, measurable facts."  We also promised that "[d]issent [would] be an acknowledged component of the discourse and will not serve an impediment to the process."  What we hoped to deliver was "the most responsive, productive and cooperative structure possible."

What we did not anticipate was that our community's currently elected representatives would railroad the process to meet their preconceived presumed outcome, silencing the community's questions when the questions would not produce an answer that fits their vision of a predetermined result.  I am greatly disappointed that those responsible for upholding the tenets of the process have dismissed the inquiries of community members and silenced other elected and appointed officials who have been asked to account for identified savings from consolidation.  Even though the current slate of elected officials were not signators to the original grant application, they assumed the duties and promises made in our original application.

We envisioned that when citizens sought to be involved in the process -- at any stage, even those coming quite late to the game -- they would be welcomed, their concerns and questions addressed and answered, and in so doing, the process would have the legitimacy necessary for implementation. As it is, more than a few of our elected officials have actually already moved or are planning to move outside the municipality, and none of the consolidation proponents have promised to run for reelection when their terms are up,ensuring that they will not be around to be accountable for the cost savings they claim to have found but which they can not - or will not - substantiate with the promised "concrete, measurable facts." They are no longer stakeholders, or no longer will be, despite their assumption of a critical role in moving this forward.

I admit that I am agnostic on consolidation in general.  Intuitively, I think that it could be done well, although to do it well would require tough choices about employment of members of our community and the services we could deliver (or not), choices that are absent from the current public dialogue.  It does not make any sense to underestimate the intelligence of the voters, to hide behind vague budget items,  or to dismiss any hint of informed opinion and participation.  The current approach inhibits the public's ability to distinguish between fact and rhetoric.  This is not the most responsive, productive or cooperative New Paltz possible.  It is a classic and epic fail of a laudatory vision for what could be, if only the elected officials were forthright, and had faith in the electorate they serve.

Best regards,

Nikki Koenig Nielson

letter to the editor from don kerr

Don Kerr's letter to the editor this week, posted with permission:

Distinct differences exist between the 2010-11 report by Fairweather Consulting versus 2012-2013 consolidation reports and Council debates regarding the same questions. Fairweather’s report projects little, if any, savings from consolidation; but the Consolidation Finance Committee has stated $1.6M in consolidation savings. That $1.6M number has come under scrutiny. The Town Supervisor’s recent raise and stipend rewarded hours spent in budget tightening from 2011 to 2012. There is concern that retirements, savings and efficiencies realized at that time might be mistakenly credited to consolidation. 2012 Town NP budget actuals (as distinct from 2012 budget projections) will soon provide clarity on that point.

The Fairweather Report also envisioned Special Tax districts that would extend to the entire community. But leaders in the quest for consolidation who also serve at the Town Council table have debated special tax districts which would shift the cost of Police, Fire, streetlights & sidewalks to “beneficiaries” whom they have defined as located downtown. After consolidation, residents of the Village would be in the minority, with 1-2 Village seats on a consolidated board.

Consolidation advocates are pushing fast and hard. When advocates began to wave the banner of the $1.6M, my first instinct was to grab my wallet and look for unanticipated consequences. A tax shift to Villagers, as articulated during 2012 Town Council discussions, could be facilitated by a built-in majority of Town representation on the new 5-7 member board. In our community’s quest for efficiency, Villagers might factor in the dollar value of political power and representation.

Donald Kerr

letter to the editor from steve greenfield

A very interesting thing about the turnout for public comment at the joint Town-Village meeting held last Thursday to consider text for a consolidation referendum: a whole bunch of people with many years of successful local government budgeting experience and relevant professional credentials came down to critique the financial report at the heart of the matter. These included people favoring consolidation, people opposing it, and people who are neutral, and were hoping clear data would help them make up their minds -- in other words, three completely different perspectives -- yet all of them were issuing the exact same critique -- the financial report is an epic fail. And so it is.

Pro-consolidation people in particular must consider the implications of this. People already in the "no" column are obviously going to stay there. People in the "not sure yet" column have nothing to move them towards "yes," and much in the combativeness of the defense of the document by its purveyors to confirm suspicions that it is politicized to the point of being potentially fraudulent. And for those of us leaning towards "yes," the report as it now stands pretty much guarantees that should the matter be hastily put to a referendum, it will not only fail to garner passage, but in so doing, will send it to the "dead issue" pile for at least another generation, if not forever.

Town Supervisor Susan Zimet's contention that the matter must be rushed to the ballot booths before May, lest the composition of the Village Board change to one less inclined to put the matter to referendum at all, is the exact wrong approach for consolidation advocates to take. Is there a risk that new Village trustees may be elected in May who will not vote to go to referendum? Sure. And if most Villagers are anti-consolidation, that's a legitimate way for them to express that, saving the expense and divisiveness of the referendum process. But they might not. And even if they do, there's another Village election in two years. Weigh that against the risk of putting it to the public now, with no supporting data; with a mountain of data that is demonstrably false; with the risks completely ignored; and with prominent pro-consolidation residents refusing to support the vote due to bad information. Because in that scenario, it's the consolidation itself that fails, not the process of getting it to the voters, and when that happens, it's over for good.

If New Paltz citizens, no matter what their initial position on this matter may be, are to have the fair debate to which they are entitled on a matter of such historic import, and if pro-consolidation citizens in particular are to have a reasonable chance at their goal, the pause button has to be hit right now. Everyone please contact your Town and Village Board members, and ask that the process be delayed for at least as long as it may take to unpack what went wrong with the financial report, and to reassemble it with useful, plainly verifiable data.