RES PUBLICA - Gloversville, NY Edition

In no particular order:

Fire Department Manning

To Mr. Owen Smith ( http://www.leaderherald.com/page/content.detail/id/521079.html?nav=5008 ) the reason you don't see cuts in the Fire Department is because the city is contractually unable to do so.  In 2003, a minimum manning clause was added to the contract that effectively freezes department manning and the 24 hour shift schedule.  It would definitely be possible to man the Fire Department at a substantial reduction in personnel for the same efficiency, but that option is not open to the city at this time.  What seems "real funny" to you is not collusion, but error.  The inclusion of the minimum manning clause was the result of one person's perception of time pressure combined with a lack of experience - nothing more sinister than that (though it doesn't change the fact we all continue to pay for it).

Buybacks

Regarding former Mayor Hughes' attempt to seek reimbursement from the City of Gloversville ( http://www.leaderherald.com/page/content.detail/id/521051.html?nav=5005 ) I applaud Mayor King's stance.  The only known basis for the claim is the old Personnel Policy for Non Union Officials.  This policy was enacted in or around 1997.  It was applicable solely to certain individuals filling specific offices at the time, not to the positions themselves and certainly not to anyone who would fill those positions in the future.  Not one of the individuals to whom the policy applied currently work for the city, so the policy is no longer valid.  All new department level hires were brought in under specific personal contracts.

This is not to say I agree with the whole notion that buybacks are bad.  I'm sorry, but they saved the city money when it came to buybacks on shift workers like Police and Fire.  Paying a worker straight time to not take a vacation is far preferable to paying a worker vacation pay and another worker time and a half to fill in for him.  Throwing out the baby with the bathwater is rarely a sane and level headed approach to money management.

Stimulus Funding

The two stimulus fund acquisitions by the city of Gloversville should be celebrated( http://www.leaderherald.com/page/content.detail/id/521089.html?nav=5011 ) and ( http://www.leaderherald.com/page/content.detail/id/521111.html?nav=5011 ).  While one can argue that a state in as much financial distress as New York really ought not to be loosely throwing around funds for such projects, the fact of the matter is that they are.  So, if they are, it is in Gloversville's best interest to capitalize on it, and it is obvious that our leadership has done so.  Soon a debate must take place within the Common Council over any funding cost share needed to accept these grants.  For my two cents, find the money.  However.  Wherever.  Gaining hundreds of  thousands of dollars for the sake of a few tens of thousands of dollars is an amazing return on investment.  Just find some way to make it happen or you'll be guilty of saving pennies and losing dollars.

YMCA

While I know the rehabilitation of the old YMCA building on East Fulton Street is a contentious issue, I believe supporting it is the only option (http://www.leaderherald.com/page/content.detail/id/521112.html?nav=5011 ).  Those who contend there should be other uses for the building have yet to actually produce a plan to make that happen, even though this discussion has been going on for years.  Such a failure can only mean that no such alternate use exists without great expense.  Since no one seems to be stepping up to the plate to front the money for that expense, we are left with the only money available being the grant obtained by the YMCA.  It is my understanding that the money the YMCA has in its possession is only allowed to be used for the single purpose of fixing that structure.  Failing to fix it will result in an historic downtown building adding to blight, or being forever lost to the wrecking ball.  I also imagine that the YMCA's financial situation might become somewhat precarious if the loan is not able to be used in the intended manner, jeopardizing the many other missions it provides for the citizens of the county, including residents of Gloversville.  Despite my 2004 through 2007 vocal misgivings about the Y's move to Harrison Street, I do not dislike the facility or the organization (I am a member) and would hate to see it unable to meet its local mission because of this.  Let us not forget that the city is in some respect culpable in that the YMCA Board of Directors would likely never have moved forward on this project in its current form if they had not been given permission to carry out their plan in the first place.

To those who believe the inclusion of a few more beds downtown will somehow destroy Gloversville, I must respectfully disagree.  I've seen supposedly good, solid, middle class citizens brought down in disgrace due to drugs, sex or other vices, and I've seen down and out people pick themselves up by their proverbial bootstraps and make something of themselves.  Whether these people reside at the YMCA, the Kingsboro Hotel, or somewhere else within a city that is barely 2 miles across isn't going to matter much.  Blaming them is nothing but scapegoating, and of the cheapest worst kind at that.

Estee

Related to the YMCA issue is the issue of the next phase of construction on the old high school portion of the Estee project.  There is a rumor being floated that the Crossroads Incubator Corporation (CIC) may choose not to do the project if the YMCA project moves forward.  I generally don't take much stock in rumors, but I feel compelled to mention this one and ask, if there is any truth to it, that the CIC, and the EDC, please understand that the YMCA project functionally changes nothing with respect to Gloversville's downtown.  We are all agreed that concentration of people in the downtown area is good for business.  The theory has been that the folks who live in Estee are going to spend the money that will help downtown thrive.  Those who live at the Y certainly will not be as capable in that respect; but the two groups together are a microcosm of the haves and have nots throughout Gloversville.  As stated above, it does not matter if someone of little means, or negative intent, lives in the YMCA or on Burr Street.  The ability to do mischief on Main Street is just as possible regardless of where ones depredations originate.  My argument is that to assume those in the YMCA are any more likely to do hurtful things is an unjustified rush to judgment based on stereotyping.  The CIC should be big enough to understand this and not withhold the massive shot in the arm represented by rehabilitating the rest of Estee.  Downtown Gloversville deserves such an opportunity to be based on logic, not on emotion.

Kinderhook Development

The debate over whether to allow Kinderhook Development to build in the north end of the city should have been settled months ago if the Planning Board were following the approved City of Gloversville Comprehensive Plan from 2003 as it is required to do by law ( https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0Bwo0MK4-PlvFMzViNDY1MWYtMDRjNS00NjMyLTkyY2MtZDJkYTk0NDBiOWQ0&hl=en ).  In 2004, when I pulled it off the shelf in the City Clerk's closet, I was told I was the first person to use it since its adoption.  The two or three times the topic of using it has bubbled up in the council chamber, people looking for it have had to scrabble hard to find a copy (the only known existing copy is at the Gloversville Public Library).  This is clearly an indication the document is not being well considered in relation to planning and zoning issues.

I would direct the Planning Board to the following statement in that document, "Many residents still consider our community a "walking city" since the majority of our residents live within walking distance of the Central Business District. The idea of having and keeping a "walking city" is extremely important to both residents and business owners in the City of Gloversville. The City of Gloversville feels that a walking city provides a setting in which human interaction is not only possible but encouraged. Unlike many other cities throughout New York State, where community character seems to be disappearing, the City of Gloversville has not yet succumbed to significant urban sprawl where residents need to use their vehicles to go almost anywhere."

Now, how can such a body, following the approved will of the people as represented in the 2003 Comprehensive Plan, agree to a plan that very blatantly adds to urban sprawl, not to mention the twin environmental and tax related problems already discussed in detail in other articles?

I'd strongly recommend that body reconsider their position, and I would ask City Attorney Mathew Trainor to ready an appeal of any decision allowing construction based on the information contained in the 2003 Comprehensive Plan and the document, "Zoning and the Comprehensive Plan," located here: (https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0Bwo0MK4-PlvFMTBkM2QwMWMtM2FjMS00ZGRkLTlmNDctMTgzMGM3NGE4Mzhh&hl=en ). 

The Stipend

Okay, council, it's time to figure out the rules of procedure and use them to do something other than delay forward progress ( http://www.leaderherald.com/page/content.detail/id/521054.html?nav=5011 ).  A wording change can be fixed with a motion to amend.  Someone makes a motion to amend, in some fashion, a piece of legislation, another seconds the motion to amend, discussion is offered on the amendment, a vote is taken, and, if it passes, the amendment is made, followed by a vote on the entire amended piece of legislation.  This isn't difficult.  Delaying passing the amended legislation until the Mayor signs a silly piece of paper is improper.  You could have voted to allow the stipend to be valid AFTER the Mayor signs the form so that the "legislating" on this issue would be done and over with.  When you are messing with the financial well being of an employee, try to follow the rule that the employee should get the greatest consideration and not be jerked around by politics and procedure.

Raises

Speaking of stipends and not messing with employees unnecessarily, let me just say that I have some rather mixed feelings about the $3000 raise for Transit Director Al Schutz (http://www.leaderherald.com/page/content.detail/id/521031.html?nav=5011 ) .  There is, in my opinion, absolutely no doubt that the work performance he has shown all but screams for him to be remunerated better.  Any business would understand that hard working employees should be shown their value.  On the other hand, doing it after the budget has been established is a somewhat questionable practice (though, I admit, I was involved in exactly the same thing during my time on the council with Bruce VanGenderen - another person who, in my opinion, deserved it).  Of course, for all I know an attempt may have been made to address the matter during the budget process.  Given the current council's method of slashing department budgets without the department head present to defend the need, who knows what might have been thrown out during such highly irregular budgeting practices?

Which leads me to....

The Budget

While internal conversations on the budget may have taken place, those of us on the outside are still left wondering how the imbalances of the hastily adopted and incomplete 2010 budget are going to be fixed.  This should be a priority.  The former Mayor's budget is the one that went into effect, and it was not a balanced budget required by state law (yes, they can order us to have one even if they are functionally incapable of creating one themselves).  More attention should be given to this matter.