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

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

public comments by guy kempe

At the request of KT Tobin and Steve Greenfield, I have reviewed the following documents available to the public on the VoNP website:

• Year 2011 Revenues with DPW grouped, 12-20-2012
• Summary of 2011 Actual Expenditure Village/Town
• Village Town Water and Sewer Rate Anysis (Based on 2012 Rates)
• Town and Village Tax Rates Base on 2011 Actuals and 2012 Taxable Value
• Tax Rates for Town and Village [Note: Village represents approximately 25.6% of Town Taxable Value]
• Attachment 3 A-2009 New Paltz Police Cals by Zone
• Police Zone Activity-October 2012
• Space Needs for a Merged Government
• Town and Village Space Report
• Report of Town /Village Fiscal Consolidation Committee to the Joint Boards and Community
• Tax Rates if Consolidated (Rev 1/8/13)
• Tax Rate Comparisons (Sumarized) With Recommended Police Benefit District Included

In addition, I reviewed Part G. Work Program - Project Description; Goals & Objectives; Project Area; Background & History, and; Component Tasks – from the High Priority Planning Grant Application for Efficient & Effective Government which funds the study of potential municipal merger.

Based upon these documents, I see cases where the assumptions they made are totally off base. For example, the cost of administering a single payroll [A1430.1] will not decrease in any significant way, as payroll costs are based upon a fixed escalator based upon the number of employees. As suggestion that a handful of staff reductions (mostly electeds) will result in the proposed savings of almost 60K are a distortion.

On the matter of professional services, while the village and town do spend some money on legal expenses [A1420.4] related to each other, the estimate that these services cost almost 84% of the legal services they currently use is an exaggeration. Present engineering services required in each municipality will remain the same.

As Michael Russo pointed out, any one-time-only reduction seen in the 2011 budget from reductions [A3120.1&2&3] in force due to retirements etc, has nothing to do with proposed future savings of $300,000.

In 2011, combined expenditures for the Town and Village in the areas of Central Communication [A1650.4] Central Printing [A1670.4] and Data Processing [A.1680.4] amount to $145,011. There is no explanation how consolidating these expenses to Data Processing [A.1680.4] will result in costs of only $70,000.

As I recall, the town and village shared a contract with NYCOM for a repeater [A3989.4] and eliminating this duplication will plausibly result in a savings of $2000 per year.

The assumption that there will be reduced insurance costs because there are fewer municipal buildings [A1910.4] resulting in $10,000 savings is not based on anything specific I see in the proposal.

In my opinion, the costs of zoning board [A9010.1] planning board [A8020.1] and the professional / admin services required to address applications will not be reduced $48,665 because there will not be one fewer application in either town or former village based on consolidation, nor will the costs of administration or review be curtailed.

It is my understanding that DPW and Town Highway have for many years shared equipment and costs wherever possible, and it is unlikely that added reductions of costs of significance could result from government merger.

In my opinion, the community could achieve most of the desirable benefits of merger by simply establishing an Intermunicipal Water/Sewer Infrastructure board to set rates and policies for the system, and by establishing a Special Police Protection (taxation) District to share the costs of added services in the commercial district (“Zone 6”.) Also, in my opinion, the documents I reviewed suggest the community has failed to meet the "project goals and objectives" described in Part G Work Program of the planning grant.

public comments by kt tobin

I was part of the team that wrote the original 2009 application to the state to request funding to study alternative governance models for New Paltz. This process has most definitely turned out differently from what we had hoped and expected.

We wanted this study to provide the requisite factual information to (from the original proposal): "help the public distinguish between fact and rhetoric in order to develop and contribute informed opinion and participation." We actually got the buy-in and the votes from wary village and town board members at the time because the plan we laid out was going to be different. It was going to be informed and inclusive. Disappointingly, we have not come anywhere near achieving that goal.

My assessment of the reports (human resources, infrastructure, financial) completed by the consolidation proponents is that they lack sufficient detail and documentation. If a professional submitted these reports, one could easily make the case to not pay. They are unorganized and lack attention to standard reporting and accounting best practices. Egregiously, false information about aggregate “savings” was released to the public and the press before there was any real or adequate validation of the numbers. And at a recent joint town/village meeting, the town supervisor actually silenced the independently elected town highway superintendent when he was asked to provide detail about the over half a million dollars his department would contribute to the supposed “savings”. 

I was distressed by this so I called Chris Marx and he walked me through the highway numbers in the financial report. All the proposed savings ($520K) cuts were already made in the 2013 town budget - with consolidation in mind, including 4 positions ($320K) and the remainder $200K (not buying stuff he knows the village has). All one time costs, already instituted with the assumption of merger in the short term. He in no way can or will cut more people, as he believes he can not do that safely. Overall it appears none of the cuts require consolidation and he has some great ideas for efficiency that could easily be implemented informally or via inter-municipal agreements.

In my review of the recently released financial report, I could not find any significant savings that would require consolidation to implement, found no work load or safety analysis, or any assessment of the impact the proposed cuts to personnel and services would have (e.g. how much longer it will take to plow all the roads in a typical snow storm). There appear to be multiple lines that were cut from the town budget this year in anticipation of merger, but are being counted towards future savings. Government appears to grow, not shrink, as many new and various infrastructure special districts are proposed for the village (e.g. lighting, sidewalks, police, fire, sewer). Overall, the financial report reads as a tax restructuring – not a consolidation – plan, as it includes significant tax shift from the town to the village – it is definitely not an appealing scenario for villagers to have their taxes increase in tandem with losing home rule!

What is currently proposed is not a viable, equitable, or democratic path. I do believe we can have more efficient and effective government in New Paltz, and I will continue to contribute to this work with that goal in mind. 

letter, kt tobin to chris marx

KT Tobin (former Vice President, New Paltz School Board) to Chris Marx Highway Superintendant

I have some questions about the T/V New Paltz consolidation study HR and Finance reports. It is my understanding that as elected Town of New Paltz Highway Superintendent you participated in and contributed to these committees and made recommendations that were included in their final reports.

A. In the HR report, from page 4, section I, item D:

1. What was the basis for this statement? "Based on input from department heads, council persons  and others the committee has been advised that as many as 13 full time positions can be eliminated with many of these positions coming from buildings and grounds."
2. How many positions did you recommend be eliminated from the town highway department?
3. Please provide both the workload and safety analysis that provided the basis for making this recommendation to reduce your staff
4. Please provide your assessment of the potential impacts on service delivery, e.g. how much longer it will take to plow all the roads in a typical snow storm
5. Please provide your assessment of the impact of these recommendations on worker morale and fair collective bargaining practices.
6. Please provide the timeline that you constructed in order to implement the proposed reduction in staffing

B. In the HR report, from page 9, section III, item 2 reads, "Employee head count reductions should coincide with retirement to the extent possible" (italics added).

1. Did you recommend this strategy?
2. Which positions from your answer above (1b) did you recommend be reduced via retirement?
3. Which positions did you foresee reducing via other means and what were those means?

C.  In the HR report, from page 9, section III, item 3 recommends transitioning to a part-time staff to reduce health care and retirement costs

1. Did you recommend this strategy?
2. How many positions did you recommend be transitioned to part-time positions?
3. Which positions from your answer above (1b) did you recommend be transitioned to part-time via retirement of full-time workers?
4. Which positions did you foresee transitioning to part-time via other means and what were those means?
5. Please provide both the workload and safety implications for this type of staffing more reliant on a part-time workforce.
6. Please provide your assessment of the potential impact on service delivery based on staffing more reliant more part-time workers, e.g. how much longer it will take to plow all the roads in a typical snow storm
7. Please provide your assessment of the impact of these recommendations on worker morale and fair collective bargaining practices.
8. Please provide the timeline that you constructed to implement the proposed transition in staffing

D. From the Finance report data on public works departments:

• $2,699,936 Total town + village budget
• $2,179,859 Merged budget
• $ 520,077 Savings

1. How was the savings of $520,777 derived? Please provide an itemized list with associated savings including positions, materials, etc.
2. Please provide both the workload and safety analysis behind your recommendations included in the $520,777 reduction.
3. Please provide your assessment of impact on service delivery that will result from your recommendations, e.g. how much longer it will take to plow all the roads in a typical snow storm.
4. Please provide the timeline that you constructed to implement the proposed savings.

Thank you for serving New Paltz.

I look forward to your prompt response.

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.

public comments by mike russo

I just drafted a letter summing up all the above and more, but since the next Joint Meeting of the Town and Village is tomorrow [1/15/13], when Q&A takes place, much of what I wrote may already be discussed. I'm wondering if some of the supporting documents to the savings claims will be made available at tomorrow's meeting.

1. The single largest cost savings line in the Expenditures spreadsheet is comprised from a collection of DPW and Highway item lines. The total savings is stated as $520,077. This figure seems unrealistically high for savings realized by consolidation, since regardless of whether we have one or two governments, we still have the same number of roads to be plowed and repaired, and the same number of vehicles, more or less, to be maintained. Consolidating to one garage will save a limited amount of money. So how will this cost savings be realized?  Note: I would like to ask follow-up questions in person in regard to this question.
2. Regarding Line items A3120.1&2&4, why is a $300,000 reduction in police expenditures being counted as consolidation savings when the annotation states "reduced due extenuating circumstances in 2011, no longer anticipate"? That brief note seems to imply that the $300,000 reduction has been already taken place, and has nothing to do with whether or not consolidation takes place. Please clarify.
3. The Fiscal Committee report contains a sentence that reads "Please note: The consolidated budget presented reflects personnel adjustments already made in the 2013 adopted Town Budget, and therefore, there are minimal employee impacts (except for elected personnel)." This statement suggests to me that labor savings that has already been initiated in the Town per its 2013 Budget is being presented erroneously in the report as savings that would be obtained by means of consolidation. Those 2013 personnel adjustments should show up as a correction line in the cost analysis and not be included in the tally for savings due to consolidation, yet I see no such correction. This leads me to believe that those personnel adjustments that are already in place and unrelated to consolidation, are nevertheless being included as savings in the various labor lines and the labor-related lines, such as A9010.8, A9030.8, A9040.8, A9060.8. Please clarify.
4. Line item A1420.4 Law expenditures in 2011 for the village and town were about $58,997 and $115,484 respectively, so how could consolidation result in a reduction of these costs to $95,000, a much lower amount than the Town’s costs alone? On what possible basis relating to consolidation, would legal costs drop by 45%?
5. Line item A1440.4 Engineer is being cut from $137,071 in combined 2011 expenditures to $50,000. Such a decrease seems unrealistic. Furthermore, since the village had less than $2,000 in 2011 costs, why would this $86,971 in cost reduction be counted as savings due to consolidation.
6. The consolidation of Treasurer, Personnel/Payroll and Bookkeeping/Budget (A1325.1, A1340.1, A1430.1) is shown as yielding a 25% savings. That seems highly optimistic. Since this line is primarily labor and related, what are the specifics in terms of job roles and costs of the analysis of the combined workloads that determined that 25% of the tasks are duplicative of town and village?
7. Line item A1680.4 Data Processing shows consolidation savings estimated at $25,650, a 33% reduction. While one would expect that consolidation will realize savings in Data Processing costs, the total number of workstations and software user licenses will not decrease; therefore this seems like unrealistically high reduction in costs. What are the specifics in terms of item and dollar costs that would result in a reduction of 33% in costs?
8. Line item A1650.4 is Town Central Communications Contractual, for which the entire $40,535 of expenditures is in the Savings column because, according to the spreadsheet note, this item is absorbed by consolidation into Line A1680.4 Data Processing. But since Data Processing expenditures is already reduced by 33%, it would seem that expenditures for this Central Communications line item are being completely eliminated. Is this an accurate assumption? What are the individual components of this line’s $40,535 costs? How much of the savings would directly relate to consolidation?
9. This question is to be posed to the members of the Town and Village Boards. Many arguments could be advanced as to why consolidation may be good for our community. But the likely assumption is that for most voters, the tax rates issue is going to be front and center- they will vote for consolidation if there's the promise of significant reduction of taxes. That's why the financial picture of consolidation has to addressed with the upmost of care. Most people are too busy or not comfortable to delve deep in the analysis of double-checking and questioning the figures given to them by public officials, even if they are provided full information. As elected officials, you are charged with the public trust, with the responsibility to present a fair and clear assessment of what savings would be obtained by the consolidation of the Village and Town governments. I must admit that I am surprised and troubled by the many flaws, inaccuracies and obfuscations that appear to be present in the Expenditures spreadsheet and by the stridency of the Fiscal Committee’s report and recommendation made on the
   basis of this problematic analysis. I am further troubled by the sharp contrast of the Fiscal Committee's
   high figure for savings due to consolidation as compared with the 2011 Fairweather study, which on
   pages 23-24 (of version 2.1) suggests that savings due to consolidation is likely to be modest, and
   states "This reiterates the concept that restructuring through consolidation is not an effective means in
   overall reduction of the cost of local government." What will happen, if consolidation is approved and
   then it turns out that the expert consultants, in fact, were right? Therefore, I ask of all Town and Village elected officials: Will you agree to retain a reputable accounting firm to perform a professional grade report on the cost savings analysis using current budgets and cost projections, before scheduling any referendum on the issue of consolidation?
10. In approaching the Fiscal Committee’s report and Expenditure spreadsheet, two Basic Principles of Accounting come to mind, those of Full Disclosure and Conservatism. The Full Disclosure principle holds that all past, present and future information that may have had an impact on the financial performance needs to be fully disclosed. The Conservatism principle holds when choosing between two solutions, the one that will be least likely to overstate assets and income should be picked. My examination of the Fiscal Committee’s report and Expenditure spreadsheet suggests that neither of these tenets have been observed. My questions with regard to Full Disclosure are: 1) When will supporting documentation for all material line item savings be made available to the public? 2)Why was this documentation not made immediately available along with the Report and Expenditures spreadsheet so that ample time was available to the public to properly critique the Report? My question with regard to Conservatism is:  Will you endorse the idea of retaining a reputable Accounting Firm to ascertain the accuracy of your figures in regard to estimated savings obtained from consolidation, and to perform similar analysis on current year budgets and cost projections?