Wide Awake

I'm wide awake.

I shouldn't be because it's 2:38 a.m. But while our congressional "leaders" dither, the fabric of our society frays at an ever-alarming rate. The rhetoric has been about a revolution, but what we really need is an awakening.

The number of people dying from the COVID-19 pandemic is staggering. The tally is comparable to other singular events; 1918 Spanish Flu, World War II, or 9/11. The sheer toll is nearly unimaginable. Sadly, we were ill-prepared.

The problem now is not that tragedy has befallen us. It's not about affixing blame for who didn't do this or that. It's certainly not about talking about how resilient we are. People who lived through The Great Depression and World War II were resilient, but they still had to suffer through it. So will we.

It's about what to do right now. It's about simple survival. Not just from the virus, but from the impending economic fallout on a scale we've never before encountered. This ordeal has already been hard. It's likely to get a lot harder.

First and foremost, we must survive the health crisis. If we don't, nothing else matters. Nothing. Complacency kills. That's how we arrived at this point to begin with. Yet, it's still surprisingly pervasive.

It's imperative that we develop a better and swifter comprehensive response. That'll involve extensive testing, at the very least; something we haven't been able to achieve to date. I'll leave the virus solution to the medical experts, but the economic response so far has been bewildering. Trillions of dollars have been misallocated. Propping up financial markets at this juncture is shortsighted and will ultimately prove ineffective as the longer term impact from record unemployment and crippled industries plays itself out. You're delusional if you think there is a V-shaped recovery on the horizon. It simply isn't going to happen.

Sirens should be sounding on near-term economic concerns that involve the crumbling supply chain and the general welfare of the population. The increasing disruption to producing and distributing necessary goods, especially food, is alarming. Priorities are being redefined, and it's a real question mark of whether those responsible for keeping such things intact are even paying attention. Overall policy decision-making often appears incomplete, uninformed, or outright contradictory. We need to do much better and we'll need new leaders to emerge to make it happen.

That's a lot of doom and gloom to digest. I hope I'm wrong, but I fear I'm right. To paraphrase the band U2, this is not a rebel article...but there's been a lot of talk, maybe too much talk. It's time for an awakening.

No New Tax Party

The Daily Gazette reported today on an extraordinary new effort taking shape. The effort is a grassroots independent ballot line initiative that I am pleased to say I am part of. I thought it appropriate to clarify our initiative in my own words, now that Mr. Lamendola has given you his interpretation of our effort.

Our candidate slate is comprised of:

Brian McGarry for Rotterdam Town Supervisor
John Mertz for Rotterdam Town Council
Michael O’Connor for Rotterdam Town Council
Brad Littlefield for Schenectady County Legislator District 4

We are collectively, trying to collect petition signatures in an effort to create a new independent ballot line, the No New Tax Party. It is a monumental task.

Our message is simple and straightforward: No New Taxes. We are all committed to 0% tax increases for the next 2 years. We believe it is a realistic and achievable goal. More importantly, we know from knocking on hundreds of doors that it is what the people need, want, expect, and demand. The taxpayer is maxed out. He desperately needs relief.

This is not, as Mr. Lamendola reports, an “insurgency.” Insurgency implies that our cause is illegitimate. Insurgency also negatively introduces a suggestion of unlawfulness or armed revolt. Our effort can more accurately be described as a grassroots movement. It is intended to create a totally new dynamic of governance. A dynamic where taxpayer concern is placed first. We aim to shed the labels and constraints of party politics we’ve grown accustomed to and replace them with a true commitment to fiscal restraint and tax dollar efficiency. We intend to be held accountable.

Are these ideas brand new? Of course not. We’ve all heard politicians promise these things before but they have failed in large part to deliver on that promise. Our effort is the tangible incarnation of the displeasure associated with that failure. We have taken the highly visible tax protest gatherings we’ve witnessed across the nation to the next logical level. Action. We’ve become candidates for office to facilitate solutions to the dissatisfaction already so prevalently displayed. Despite what appear to be insurmountable odds against our success, we are motivated to try nonetheless. If we fail, we’ve tackled an “impossible” task and reinforced its impossibility. (Or maybe we’re just the wrong messengers.) If we succeed, then we’ve suddenly made the “impossible” possible. We intend to succeed and believe we can.

It’s been suggested in some circles that our actions are “destructive.” I prefer to think of our actions as creative. I’ve heard the term “creative destruction” by some and maybe that is the best description. We are challenging the status quo for sure and in that sense, success would certainly lead to the demise or destruction of certain party interests, I suppose. I think that’s a good thing. Governance should be about the people’s interests. Our goals, however, revolve around what we intend to create, not destroy. We need to transcend the negativity and distractions that currently engulf our electoral process and return to a mindset of accomplishment that best serves the electorate’s needs.

7th of July

It’s appropriate I think that today, July 7th kicks off petition signature gathering for Independent Nominating Petitions in New York State. There is a sea change of voter sentiment in progress. There have already been two major successful Tea Party events in Albany alone. The New York State Senate demonstrates new lows in dysfunctional government and disregard for the voters of New York daily. People are truly fed up. I think we will see them actually do something about it next election. My belief stems directly from the conversations I’ve had with voters after knocking on their doors.

Assuming I can successfully navigate NYS Election Law, you’ll soon have ballot alternatives at least when it comes to the Town of Rotterdam and Schenectady County. Not alternatives just to be alternatives but alternatives offering real solutions. The “revolution” is beginning. It’s time to declare your independence again by seeking out these alternatives when you enter the voting booth. Our elected leaders must be held accountable. Many of them have forgotten that they are elected to serve us. We can do better. We must do better.

So as you begin to enjoy your summer with election thoughts far from your mind, know that the next level of independence – independence from two-party politics and gridlock, independence from the strangle-hold of ever-increasing taxes, independence to achieve the quality of life we deserve and tax relief we require – is a knock on your door away. Will you answer it? I hope so.

Tirade

I attended tonight's Town Board meeting and delivered what I can only characterize as an emotional tirade. I hate it when I let my anger dictate my comments. Anyway, I think I remained mostly appropriate and conveyed what I set out to. I'm upset about the continued activity on the land parcel I've discussed at length elsewhere. The thrust of my argument tonight revolved around what amounts to an illegal curb cut. I augmented that aspect by revisiting my previous legal argument and concerns. The whole affair is just another example of the Town failing in the areas of oversight and code enforcement. Who will be accountable? Apparently, no one.

Solar Eclipse

The Rotterdam Town Board took another step recently toward operating in the shadows when they ceded power to appoint engineers to the Planning Commission. Of course, the move was touted by the majority of the Town Board as a means toward expediency. Developer interest was served over resident interest. The sole dissenting vote was cast by Mr. Mertz.

The problem with this procedural change is that it undermines ultimate Town Board accountability and pushes engineer selection further into the shadows. Transparency and open government are among the most fundamental and important aspects of effective governance. The passage of this measure seriously erodes those principles.

Who will ensure that potential conflicts of interest are properly scrutinized and disclosed? What are the criteria that will be used to qualify for the “preferred” engineer list? What are the criteria that will be used to be selected from the list? Will this selection process be uniform and public? Is it proper that the Planning Commission is the only unelected town body with the ability to hire/fire now? Who will be accountable to us, the taxpayer, when things go awry as a result?

Transparency in Rotterdam just became more opaque. I still have not heard a convincing argument for why this change is necessary and how it will benefit me as a taxpayer. I don’t like it.

Progress

Thomas Edison once said, “Restlessness and discontent are the first necessities of progress.”

I attended last night’s Town Board meeting; partly I admit to see the dynamic of the board now that Mr. Mertz has been ostracized from the Republican Party. I didn’t see any of the other announced candidates in attendance but it’s possible they may have been there. Mr. Mertz, class act that he is, conducted himself in the same manner we’ve grown accustomed to, so no sordid tale to relate. I believe every single resolution, of which there were three pages, were motioned and seconded by a combination of Mr. Della Villa and Mr. Signore, however.

The recently proposed matter of granting the Planning Commission autonomy to select Town Designated Engineers (TDE’s) prompted the most discussion. It was on the agenda as a well-disguised public hearing. Had not Mr. Mertz made some comments that forced Mr. Comenzo and one of the TDE’s to respond, I would have been oblivious that it was a public hearing regarding this issue. I have views of my own on the matter and after listening to the other comments, I weighed in too. I basically expressed concerns about the process and criteria that would be used to produce and maintain the “Approved” list of TDE’s. While I appreciate the effort to improve efficiency of the current planning process, I would like to see the Comp Plan, performance standards, and all other zoning language updated, adopted, and firmly in place before looking to serve developer interests to speed up the process. The lag time currently is not burdensome, in my opinion. I am also concerned about granting hiring power to appointed town officials. I believe that ultimate accountability should remain with the Town Board and that changing the current approach diminishes Town Board accountability.

The answers provided seemed to indicate that accountability for any TDE “mistakes” would become that of the Planning Commission Chairman. I also understood the answer to my direct question about whether there would be a formal, defined process to select preferred engineers or an ad hoc, case-by-case process to be the latter, which also disturbs me. It may be splitting hairs to some degree because as it stands the Town Board usually relies on the Planning Commission engineer recommendation anyway in their determination. Though I didn’t say it last night because many of the people present would have interpreted it as some sort of accusation, I’m concerned that the change in procedure could create a window for a “pay-to-play” component. I wasn’t looking for trouble so I carefully danced around what I was trying to say without causing anyone offense.

I think I actually witnessed progress though on several of the issues foremost on my mind. The 3 CDTC studies were rolled into the existing Comprehensive Plan. That’s a huge advance, I think, and was accompanied by Mr. Comenzo’s stated commitment to getting performance standards and zoning language incorporated also. We’ll hopefully see some upcoming public comment period related to the Comp Plan.

More progress involved the passage of a resolution accepting the land deemed necessary for drainage relief to proceed in Masullo Estates. I’m not holding my breath but it represents another hurdle cleared. I congratulate and thank Mr. Mertz for his tireless effort to see that aspect through.

There was also a brief comment from Supervisor Tommasone regarding what he characterized as forward progress on building a new, long-awaited water tower in Rotterdam Junction. I’ll accept his remark at face value but with all the delays we’ve seen so far with that initiative, I’ll just hope this time is the charm.

Today is President Abraham Lincoln’s birthday. His take on progress? “I walk slowly, but I never walk backward.”

The ART of Government

My philosophy of effective government revolves around 3 important concepts.

Accountability.
Responsibility.
Transparency.

The first two concepts are very closely related but subtly different. I distinguish them apart by thinking of accountability in terms of answerability, while thinking of responsibility in terms of the burden, duties and obligations of having to take action on something. Of course, transparency is simply having it all out in the open for scrutiny.

Getting all 3 together is the real trick.

Then there is the infamous quid pro quo, or “something for something.” Quid pro quo, though not inherently sinister, has increasingly taken on negative connation in the political sphere. In politics, it’s what gets things done. In politics, it’s what sends people to jail. In politics, it serves interests…just usually not yours. Whenever you are presented with a quid pro quo, it’s a potential red flag. Take extra precaution to remain in the light, because if it takes place in the dark, it probably isn’t ethical and maybe even illegal.

Distractions

Once again, the issue of a town board raise is front and center. This time in the guise of Community Committee formation to offer insights. WHAT? This is just plain crazy…and wholly unnecessary. Personally, I find it insulting.

The Town of Rotterdam has an unfortunate penchant for committee formation to address problems. While on the surface appearing as a genuine attempt to involve more citizens in the process of decision-making, it is a device more often used to diffuse criticism for the already predetermined decision. In this instance, the Town Board has made it abundantly clear it wants a raise and was sorely disappointed when it was denied recently. There is no need for a committee to study it and make recommendations. All aspects to this issue are more rightly considered during public budgetary hearings.

Let’s examine a few recent committee failures instituted by the Town. The most infamous was the Corridor Advisory Board (CAB) that was formed to make planning recommendations. Their recommendations turned out to be contentious, running counter to what the Town Board had decided independently to pursue. The Water Advisory Board (WAB), convened to systematically address several drainage issues in town, met similar resistance. Lastly, the Masullo Estates Advisory Committee was sanctioned to coordinate remediation in that subdivision but was only convened by the Town once.

The point is that forming committees to help address needs is terrific if their suggestions are ultimately factored in the solutions. However, more often than not, these committees are simply used as tools to give the appearance of progress being made when in fact, it isn’t.

I’m all for active citizen involvement but this proposed committee simply isn’t needed. The fact that so much time and energy is being devoted to the issue of raises is discouraging. It’s a distraction. It’s time to get back to the real problems plaguing our town and take real action to address them. Let’s get back to the business that matters.

Beating A Dead Horse

I had to return to the topic of the proposed salary increase for Rotterdam Town Board members because despite the raise being defeated at the most recent meeting, the horse appears only semi-dead. Newly elected Mr. Della Villa and Mr. Silva joined Supervisor Tommasone in saying no to the raise…but couched their votes in dialogue that opened the door and even seemed to support a pay raise during the next budgetary process. (In fact, the vote stalemated at 2-2 with Mr. Della Villa being absent but recording his sentiments against nonetheless.) This raise was rightly defeated on procedural issues but I still oppose a raise even if considered within proper budgetary discussion.

For now, no raise. So what’s my problem?

I don’t accept the logic being used to support a raise. Mr. Mertz and Mr. Signore have made arguments about how long it’s been since the last raise and how the increase will attract better candidates for office for both parties. Even Mr. Della Villa and Mr. Silva seem to accept those arguments in their dissent and seemed poised to pass a raise at their next opportunity.

I’ll use Mr. Silva’s argument to illustrate my case, only because his view was stated in some length. First, he expounded on how little money the extra $5000 per person is, yet then made the case for how that increase would somehow attract more magical candidates. How can it be both ways? Further, he then talked about how candidates are driven by their desire to serve and not by any advertised salary, he himself not even knowing there was a salary as he campaigned door-to-door. He was running to try to make a difference.

I don’t dispute the Town Board works very hard. I don’t dispute that the current $10,000 salary probably doesn’t compensate them properly for all the hours they devote, nor would $15,000. The fact of the matter is they will never be compensated at a level anywhere near what might be expected in the private sector. Never. Ever. I believe their salary ought to be a token one anyway.

The position and the desire to serve attracts people or it doesn't. Simple. If you’re looking for compensation for that privilege, then you’re looking in the wrong place.

There are a few other considerations in this matter. Primarily, what’s best for the residents? 2008 looks increasingly like the beginning of an economic recession. Energy and food prices are breaking the back of nearly everyone, adding to the ever-increasing tax burdens we all shoulder. The Town of Rotterdam is light years behind in possessing adequate infrastructure to support its population. I personally find it insulting that a pay raise is even being contemplated against that backdrop. Factor in the eventual slippery slope element of disparities versus the current Supervisor’s salary and County Legislature salaries and you’ve opened Pandora’s Box.

Money is scarce. It’s about to get more scarce. Let’s forget talk about boosting salaries and put any resources toward things that need doing…no matter how little some think $20,000 is.

Transparency

Our leaders are often derided for not being more transparent. Even I was recently taken to task because I didn’t provide a detailed enough recounting of a public meeting to people that chose not to attend. If you desire transparency in government, you also have to keep your eyes open when it’s being provided. Discover the link I’ve provided below and receive access. If you can read (and that’s the only requirement), you’re in business!

Everything you ever needed to know about what makes your government tick.

http://www.dos.state.ny.us/lgss/list9.html

Accountability

Accountability. It's this concept which is probably the single most important when it comes to assessing achievement. Sure, no one likes it when they fail at achieving the desired goal. But how many actually admit the misstep and do something to rectify it? Everyone makes mistakes but only a select few truly overcome them. They're the ones that put aside excuses, take responsibility for the error, and then fix it. Find that in a politician and you've got the right man on the job.

This relates directly to what's bugging me particularly today. The woods across the street from me were cut down yesterday and a makeshift road to gain access to deeper woods has been crafted. Big deal? Only if the activity in question is questionable. The Planning Commission already ruled more than once that such activity would be strictly regulated by them when they denied these planned actions nearly a year ago. To my knowledge, that hasn't changed. And yet the trees are rapidly disappearing. I'm no tree-hugger, just a student of the law. This land has previously been subject to a Positive Declaration under SEQRA. I'm curious who'll be accountable.