RES PUBLICA - Gloversville, NY Edition

Okay, I'm actually stunned. I have been for the few days now that I've known about this action by Gloversville's Common Council.

Who would think this is a good idea?

Look, anyone who knows of my time on the council knows that I was a lightning rod. You either loved me or hated me. There are few if any who found it possible to avoid an opinion.

As a result, I frequently found myself the target of commenters jabs.

When the Margiotta issue came about, people came up each and every month to comment on their perception of the situation. At other times, well meaning but less than informed folks thought to come before the council and impart their thoughts on a diverse array of topics.

Despite dealing with savage attacks on my character, or listening to speakers whose ideas were unworkable in their presented form for one reason or another, I never once thought to ban the public speaking portion of the meeting. In fact, on more than one occasion, I voted to extend it indefinitely so that people would have the opportunity to be heard on issues they were passionate about.

So, what I'm saying is that in times of controversy and distress, the real answer should be to allow as many people to be heard as possible, not to throw away one of the few outlets available.

Besides, with the increasing public awareness of the BID board, and the ability to write Letters to the Editor to two area newspapers, closing the door on the public forum at council meetings is like putting a bandaid over a bleeding artery. It ain't holding anything back for long!

To the council members who voted in favor of this measure, please, rethink your position. I know it can be hard, especially when you feel your back is against the wall and everyone is coming at you. Your primary concern was to end the shenanigans. I can appreciate that. Unfortunately, I doubt any rules put in place will accomplish that goal unless the Mayor, or the person acting in his place, chooses to enforce them.

Under the current Rules of the Common Council, any one of you, regardless of how you voted on the change can "Reconsider the Motion" at the next full council meeting. That brings the subject up for further debate and a new vote. Hopefully, you'll see fit to vote it down.

I'd also like to add that regardless of ones feelings for the speaker, something can generally be learned from everyone who approaches the podium. I made a habit of recording the subject matter and key points of everyone who spoke, and then spent time during the week following considering their comments and what if anything I could take from them to improve things.

I ask you to recognize that your current course of action can only hope to lead to alienating the very voters you agreed to serve, and places you in a position of not hearing a voice that might impart important information in these tough financial times. The baby with the bathwater approach is rarely the appropriate response to anything.

Rather than the much-resurrected idea of sucking money out of non-profits (a stupid idea I addressed in an earlier article), where Gloversville should look for the extra revenue to fund itself is not property owners, but property renters.

I've noted that, once again, I have managed to find myself in the gunsights of amateur political mudslinger Al Lebo. I am continually amazed at the lengths he will go through in order to warp reality to fit his agenda.

For example, the cutesy nickname "Laptop Lance" is probably supposed to generate feelings on the part of the reader of jealousy (Ooh, look, he can afford a laptop!), elitism (he must think he's something special because he comes to council meetings with a laptop), as well as indirectly tying me to my-laptop-was-stolen Tim Hughes and, as he has affectionately termed it, L'Affair Margiotta, in which I am famous for my missing emails (another untrue fable told often enough to sound like reality).

But let us spend a moment analyzing these little ditties of his.

Why did Lance bring a laptop to council meetings so consistently that he eventually earned the coveted Lebo Prize?

Well, it was because council meeting minutes were never produced even close to the two week limit required by the New York State Open Meetings Law, and no record whatsoever was kept of tabled legislation and other minutaie necessary in the proper functioning of a city government (what some might call a "tickler" file).

Somebody had to do it.

So, I did it.

Curiously, the number of procedural mistakes, dropped topics, passed over legislation, and other foibles of government inefficiency radically decreased after that laptop made its debut.

So, sorry Al. I'm just gonna go ahead and wear that moniker with pride.

Lance

After reading Al Lebo once again lambasting me for the Golden Garbage truck issue of 2004, I decided that since 5 years of the 7 to 10 year lifespan of the trucks had passed, it might be a good idea to see how well they're holding up.

Before getting to that point, it is important to review the circumstances. In 2004, both of the city's garbage trucks were positively ancient as trucks of this type go. One was 13 years old. The other 15 years old. Both trucks had a lifespan of no more than 10 years and were well beyond that point. They were frequently broken, and it was becoming increasingly difficult to find spare parts. They were essentially not road worthy. The details can be found in the following report done by me in 2004:

http://docs.google.com/View?id=dwrkfd7_27d7g8dvhp

In true open government fashion, I published that study on the former http://www.backdash.com/ website, as well as passed out copies to all of my fellow council members and a few interested citizens of our city.

The only person to come up with a competing plan was Shirley Savage, for which I give her credit. Still, her plan was to buy used low budget Sterling brand garbage trucks from Canada, of all places, from a dealership a quarter of the way around Lake Erie, past Buffalo.

Not a good plan.

Ron Ellis, DPW Director at the time, wanted to get two top of the line trucks with the intention of adding extra thick walls and floor to the garbage box so that the box itself might even outlast the truck (could be transplanted onto a new chassis when needed).

This was all a great plan except for one tiny little oversight that no one appeared to notice, and was only recently discovered by Bob Abel when reviewing the purchase specs for the vehicles we bought.

It seems that Ron Ellis spec'd the garbage boxes with 11 guage steel instead of 7 guage. It would seem to make sense that 11 is a higher number and therefore it should be thicker, more durable.
Nope

The link will show you that metal guage runs inverse such that the higher number is the lower thickness. Ron's 11 made for about a 1/16" thinner wall thickness than an otherwise similarly spec'd state contract garbage truck.

http://www.offroaders.com/tech/steel-gauge-thickness.htm

Oh, Lord.

Basically, we wasted $74,000 by not going on the state contract. That money would not have been a waste if we had purchased the extra thick high quality garbage boxes we were expecting. It is a waste now that we know that isn't what we did.

I feel really bad that I didn't catch that detail. On the other hand, neither did the other 6 of my fellow council members, the Mayor, the DPW Director, and the purchasing agent at the dealership. A lot of people fell down on this one.

Fortunately, the trucks are holding up. They have problems and they are getting tired, but they're surviving. They should make their life expectancy.

Out of all this, some questions arise. One such is how to avoid this sort of thing in the future. Gloversville has a habit of throwing out its politicians (usually right about the time they truly figure out what they're doing). The greenhorns get in and have no idea what they're looking at when major decisions of this type confront them. Some will study the issue. Some just ask the department head and others do nothing and hope for the best.

There has to be a better way.

I am beginning to toy with the notion that every department ought to be professionally led, just like the Police and Fire Departments. Rather than have appointees we should have seasoned professionals.

I'm also thinking that commissions should be established for all departments. Transit, for example, already has one. The water board, while semi-autonomous and slightly different in nature, can generally be pointed to as a similar example. Commissions with interested citizens having some level of background in the areas of the particular department might help ensure council members are comfortable with the information they receive.

Still, it is already difficult to fill existing boards and commissions. The notion seems good, but might be impossible to fill.

I'm hoping readers might have additional suggestions.

A recent Leader Herald editorial bemoaned the lack of openness regarding the recently concluded Grandeaux investigation of EmailGate at City Hall. As happened in the Margiotta dismissal of 2007 and Harzinski dismissal of 2008, the information on why the decisions were made, as well as the findings of various investigations, were not generally available to the public.

It is common in such situations for people to believe a cover-up of some sort is in progress; and, in all honesty, now that I've been out of office for nearly two years, I can much better appreciate the sentiment.

But that doesn't change the law - and not just the law for the law's sake, but the law and the reason the law exists the way it does. The reasons for executive session are clearly delineated in the New York State open Meetings Law, and, either within the law itself or within the many dozens of findings and adjudications that have been rendered in the years since it was created, good reasons to explain why something should remain in executive session have been provided.

The current argument as expressed on the Gloversville BID Board is that an elected official shouldn't have the same privacy as a non-elected employee. Something about the nature of the whole election thing makes some people feel a different level of transparency is required.

While I can certainly appreciate the sentiment, here is what one portion of the law states as a reason for an executive session, "f. the medical, financial, credit or employment history of a particular person or corporation, or matters leading to the appointment, employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal or removal of a particular person or corporation;"

http://www.dos.state.ny.us/coog/openmeetlaw.html

While rather broad, we can look upon this and see that this most recent affair allegedly regarding Councilman Castiglione does indeed discuss the employment history of a particular person (Castiglione) and has the potential, under City Code Section 25-9, to result in "discipline," or "removal" of said individual.

Ergo, the law would seem to apply.

Of course, if there is a question as to its applicability, it would certainly stand to reason that anyone could send a letter to the Committee on Open Government seeking an advisory opinion on the matter.

Regardless of whether or not the law applies to elected officials, it should be pointed out that several existing advisory opinions located at the web address given above clearly indicate that except for information that runs afoul of other higher state or federal laws, executive sessions are always optional. Yes, there are 8 specific reasons that they can be held, but just because an executive session can be used does not mean it should be used.

And, perhaps, in some areas it just shouldn't be used. If doing so, whether legal or not, will only serve to anger the voters, and if publicly releasing the information will not have any particularly horrible effect upon the city, person or corporation, then by all means air the dirty laundry.

I recently wrote a letter to the editor regarding Jo-Ann Clear's bid for Mayor. Unfortunately, such a letter cannot tell everything that I believe needs to be posted in 400 words or less. While I understand the limitations the paper happens to be under, I think I'll take this opportunity to add a little more to the tapestry of my opinion.

By now most of you have reasoned that my perspective on Jo-Ann Clear's candidacy is somewhat different than the personal and cozy viewpoints recently offered by Mrs. Joan Esper and Mrs. Margaret Pedrick. What you may be asking is why, with so many potential candidates, I would single out this one person. If that question is running through your mind, hopefully what follows will provide an explanation.

Prior to 2003, I had no idea who Jo-Ann Clear was. I was introduced to her briefly as the wife of a new councilman, Pat Clear, who was joining the Gloversville Common Council at the same time I was. With the exception of the councilman-at-large, Duke Caruso, we were all new. Jo-Ann offered to give us some budget pointers, having been Gloversville's Commissioner of Finance, and most of us eagerly accepted that offer. We met at Pat and Jo-Ann's house in December 2003, before we were all in office.

It was during this meeting that she spoke about her opinions on the Fire Department and Police Department. It would be a few years later before I fully understood her and her husbands antipathy for the Transit Department too.

Prior to 1988, all of the municipalities in Fulton County operated under a revenue sharing agreement based for the most part on population. The County received 50% of all sales tax receipts. About 45% of the remaining 50% were divvied up by the various municipalities. Since Gloversville was the largest city, it tended to get the largest share of the pot.

About 1986, the City of Johnstown decided that it simply wasn't getting its fair share of the pot. It reasoned that since much of the sales tax was being generated on its "Miracle Mile," Comrie Avenue, it should acquire a larger share of the proceeds. Eventually, after much wrangling back and forth, in 1988 the City of Johnstown left this county-wide sales tax plan to collect sales tax only from within its borders (preemption).

While this was going on, Gloversville's Mayor Hammond was touting the notion that Gloversville might also have to go on preemption to protect its interests. One can only imagine her Finance Commissioner, Jo-Ann Clear, had a hand in this plan. If not, the rather thick surviving pile of correspondence maintained by Mayoral Secretary Penny Russell is surprisingly silent on any disagreement she may have had with the idea.

Not long after Johnstown reached its decision, in a very short-sighted decision of its own, Gloversville reacted by doing the same. As Finance Commissioner, Jo-Ann Clear should have been intimately involved in this decision. She simply cannot get away from the notion that she was either responsible for providing the suggested course of action to Mayor Hammond and the Common Council, or responsible for remaining silent if she had a disagreement on such an important issue.

Why was it important?

More background. In the mid 1960's, the Arterial was to be constructed. At first it would have been within the city limits traveling down what is now Hollywood Avenue. Later the current location was chosen and Gloversville was given the option of buying the land around it. Two Gloversville council members sued the City to prevent the city taking over that land and were somehow successful in doing so (how they managed it would be an interesting story, but is not important to this one).

Construction soon began on strip malls in the area, such as Britts, and it was just a matter of time before that location, coupled with a decline of industry in Gloversville, sucked the tax dollars right out of the city. As bad as this was, the county-wide sales tax formula in place at the time buoyed the city's finances, even if it did nothing for reviving downtown, and allowed us to reap some of the rewards for the amazing growth out on the Arterial.

Preemption changed all that. Preemption caused the loss of 50% of Gloversville's sales tax revenue because the city no longer had access to the wealth being generated just outside its borders, and it led to huge property tax increases starting in 1989 and continuing to this day.

There can be absolutely no doubt that Jo-Ann Clear was in part responsible that the decision to preempt was made. It was such a monumentally bad call and she has never even hinted at having been culpable for it.

Since that fiasco, Jo-Ann Clear has remained involved in the city in various capacities, most recently as part of the City Republican Committee - a political insider, part of the "machine." In that capacity, she proposed reducing the taxpayers' burden in other unworkable or financially dubious ways.

For example, despite her website's claim that she wants to "continue to provide outstanding police and fire protection for our citizens," she has taken the opposite position on several occasions over the last 6 years. Most notably, in 2003, she informed new council members of her idea to eliminate the Fire Department and downsize the Police Department.

Being the kind of guy who needs to perform formal or informal studies of major decisions, in 2004 I conducted a study on the viability of her ideas. I found them to be potentially dangerous, in violation of NYS law, and/or not cost effective. That study was shared with the members of the 2004-2007 Council, including her husband Pat Clear. I provided a personal copy to Jo-Ann Clear as well. I've attached a link to that report for all of you to read:

http://docs.google.com/View?id=dwrkfd7_24dw72mkf2

Yet, in 2006, at a town hall meeting held at Fremont (Foothills) United Methodist Church, she again promoted these ideas in a citizen packed forum. In fact, she went so far as to indicate that citizens should make it a grass roots effort to put a volunteer Fire Department in place despite the Taylor Law. This not only indicates that she read my report, but further indicates she is more than willing to thumb her nose at the law - a decision that could easily result in hundreds of thousands of dollars of lawsuits against the city.

To me, the results of the study seemed to make both ideas silly to entertain. You have no idea how many ideas seem to make a lot of sense before one digs down beneath the surface to find out what rules would affect implementation. Once those rules are known, good idea or not, it would need to be re-evaluated in light of reality. Since Jo-Ann Clear appeared not to entertain the "reality" before announcing her positions publicly in 2006, I question her ability to avoid blundering the city into serious labor, financial and legal problems (and I should know since I'm the resident expert on blundering legal issues).

Finally, for a former CPA and City Finance Commissioner, I find Jo-Ann Clear to have a questionable grasp of city financial issues.

I use her view on the Transit budget as a recent example that is emblematic of the problem. On her website she lists Transit's portion of the city budget as a 'deficit.' What does she mean by this? In financial lingo, a deficit results when one overspends the money in their account. So, to use the term 'deficit' implies Transit is routinely financially mismanaged by overdrawing whatever monies they have been given for the year.

In truth, no unexplainable cost overruns have ever occurred, and the majority of those cost overruns that have occurred did so in the first couple of years of Al Schutz term as Transit Director, and were the result of him uncovering contractual obligations no one knew were even out there. There were also issues with budgeting for fuel that, let's face it, no one could have predicted would shoot as high as it did.

But none of that measures the success that Transit has witnessed in the last 6 years. While Jo-Ann Clear, and her husband Pat, have had a definite bone to pick with Transit for years (Pat was notorious for voting against Transit appropriations during his 4 year term on the council, including proposing to eliminate Transit in his only resolution in the entire four years of his council term), the fact is that Transit's meager 1.8% of the budget has steadily decreased since 2004 due to the creative use of improved contracts, expanded advertising, partnerships with other bus utilizing government agencies, and seeking out new and increased state and federal grants. No other department is in a position to bring in such a return on investment. Two thirds of our Transit Department's operating expenses are not paid for by the citizens of our city. That's just incredible!

While I might stand alone on my interpretation of things, I believe Jo-Ann Clear is complicit in the most financially devastating decision in this city's history (preemption).

I also believe her previously stated positions, if implemented, would leave citizens defenseless, and the least fortunate essentially housebound. Couple this with her disregard for facts, figures and a trend of not listening to others, and she is clearly not the best choice for mayor of our city.

Former Councilwoman Cynthia Morey (2004 - 2007) called up during the 4-12-08 Talk of the Town radio show (AM 1340 WENT) to discuss the idea of switching to a fee for various city services (fire, police, and some DPW functions, including garbage collection, were mentioned).

She said the idea had been brought up in the past, but no one had acted on it yet. That is true.

As a colleague of hers at the time, I was, and remain, in favor of the idea of Fee for Service, but I am not in favor of requiring non profits and not for profits* to participate.

Let me explain.

Cynthia and I agree on a great many things. The issue of making non profits/not for profits pay for service is, apparently, not one of them. That happens. Hopefully she won't hold it against me!

There is a constant underlying belief that non profits/not for profits are sucking the financial lifeblood out of Gloversville. In the fall of 2004, someone suggested to me that reducing the number of non profits/not for profits in the city would be one solution to help Gloversville recover financially. I then embarked on an informal study of the non profit/not for profit situation in the city and was amazed to find out how utterly untrue that common mythical belief, as espoused by one of my constituents, happens to be.

When city, county, state, federal, and school district properties are removed from consideration because they are untaxed, and when Economic Development Corporation properties (the Gloversville Crossroads and Business parks, and the Estee Commons project) are removed because they fall under a progressive taxation system separate from regular taxes, but are still taxed.....

..... what is left amounts to just 12.4% of the total potential taxable property of the City of Gloversville.

The majority of these properties (11.49%) are houses of worship. The second runner up (.91%) consists of the 14 properties owned by The Lexington Center.

There are three reasons why charging a fee for service to houses of worship is a really bad idea:

1. Churches perform good works in the community in lieu of taxes or fees

Parishioner donations are given to operate the organization and support the good works of the church in the community.

To require those funds be given instead to the "tax" man or "fee" man depletes the group’s ability to give back to the community through the socially supportive programs the church(es) supply at no cost to the taxpayer.

The unintended consequence of siphoning off funds for the city could be to induce people to give less since they realize their money is simply going to feed government services. It could also cause greater needs issues among poorer residents of the city which only government could meet, potentially raising taxes far more than the value of the "fees" received from these churches.

2. Parishioners, who are Taxpayers, already pay for the services the church receives

This mindset was explained to the Common Council in 2004 through an open letter by Reverend Splittgerber of the Kingsboro Assembly of God Church to the Common Council, when the Fair Share program was being championed by former Councilman-at-Large Duke Caruso (2001 - 2004), that churches are not businesses. They are, in Reverend Splittgerber's words, "... a Body of People. Without the people there is no "church."

And who makes up this “Body of People?” People who are, by and large, already residents of the city.

That means these folks, either through their ownership of property, or through their rental agreements, pay into the taxation system already.

I don't know about you, but when I leave my home I fully expect that the taxes I've paid on my residential property entitle me to full police and fire protection regardless of where in the City of Gloversville I happen to be at the time of need.

So, if I have a heart attack in my house, or in my church, I'm covered. Why should my church have to pay a second time? If I am assaulted in my house or in my church, why should I have to pay for police protection with my property tax AND with my tithes and offerings? If the building catches on fire, why doesn't my fire protection, again bought and paid for with my taxes, cover me regardless of the structure I happen to be inhabiting at the time?

3. Using property value as a way of calculating the fee

While the only other statistically significant portion of the non profit/not for profit pie is comprised by The Lexington Center, I am troubled by the mindset that first inflates Lexington's overall effect within the City of Gloversville, and then uses the antipathy some residents have toward that organization to attempt to convince us that if all non profits/not for profits were paying a fee for the services they receive, we would significantly reduce the cost of services to the residents in the city.

It will have no such effect.

If we choose, for a moment, to avoid taking into consideration the potential increase in social services related costs incurred by a reduction or elimination of social programs currently provided at no cost to the taxpayers by city churches, we must take into consideration the fact that the actual number of churches in the city is just not that statistically significant, when it comes to the idea that including them in a fee for service plan will somehow help dilute the amount taxpayers currently pay.

Certainly, if one is expecting to dilute the overall cost of, say, garbage pick-up by including all of the churches, the math on that doesn't agree. At best, homeowners might save a few dollars annually - and by a few I mean A FEW, like $3 or less per year (not per thousand) - if they're lucky.

Pursuing this notion can only hope to create a huge amount of heartache and have far reaching effects throughout our social support and quality of life infrastructure which will vastly exceed any financial return to the city.

It should not be entertained.

* Non-Profit: A legal structure authorized by state law allowing people to come together to either benefit members of an organization (a club, or mutual benefit society) or for some public purpose (such as a hospital, environmental organization or literary society). Nonprofit corporations, despite the name, can make a profit, but the business cannot be designed primarily for profit-making purposes, and the profits must be used for the benefit of the organization or purpose the corporation was created to help....

** Not for Profit: A subset of the classification of Non-Profit dealing largely with associations, trusts, and societies.

I recently had the rare good fortune to listen in on Talk of the Town. One of the topics of discussion was the creation of a quarterly payment plan for city taxes. A gentleman called up wanting to know why it wasn't possible to do this. He was, apparently, frustrated that it was so difficult for him to get his taxes together annually.

While Councilman Castiglione did call in as well and say he would look into that, I can tell him right now (having already looked into the matter three years ago) that the primary reason it cannot be done is that it would undoubtedly require the dedicated services of a finance employee - a finance employee who does not currently exist - meaning a slight raise in taxes or decrease in some other worthy city business, to hire a new employee.

If the city feels it is in the financial position to make that happen, then by all means go for it.

I still think it is a waste of time and effort.

The caller's problem has nothing to do with an inability to pay annually. The problem is his inability to budget effectively. Changing payments to quarterly may seem like an adequate solution, but one has to ask oneself how that is supposed to improve his apparent inability to budget monthly. All he has to do is remove $XX from his income every month to cover the cost. Why is either he or the local government supposed to believe paying every three months will make that process easier? It is budgeting 101. He either has it, or he doesn't.

Another reason this is a waste of time is that there is already this really cool little financial vehicle known as an Escrow Account. True, when people pay off their homes their escrow account often goes away too; but it doesn't have to.

Anyone can set up an escrow account and make regular payments into it. Let a for-profit financial institution cover the cost of the labor necessary to do this function, rather than forcing the city, and therefore the taxpayers to (I hate to be obscenely rude here but...) foot the bill for one guy who apparently is incompetent at managing his money.

That's my position, and I'm sticking to it.

Lance

Well, the council meeting came and went.

I'm really not surprised that the sub-committee set up to look into this topic settled on a "Fairness" model for the distribution of funds.

Kudos go out to John Castiglione for presenting a very impassioned plea for consideration of a "Need" model for the distribution of funds. Hopefully he wasn't all alone in his belief. A "Need" model is definitely superior to a "Fairness" model.

Superior to both, however, would have been a "Safety First" model. Sidewalks are installed for the benefit of pedestrians, and poor and wealthy alike can, at times, find themselves walking over any sidewalk in this city. Therefore, it would seem that the real importance should be on fixing the worst sidewalks regardless of ability to pay or ward boundaries.

Certainly, there are some important details that should not be glossed over. A sliding ability-to-pay scale is a must. Ensuring that any legislation written to adopt this plan includes reference to existing city code rights for the city to mandatorily fix areas of non-compliance and bill the property owner is another.

Some consideration does need to be made to this concept of the city foisting the cost of sidewalk repairs off on property owners, though. It is perfectly legal, but I'm not convinced it is perfectly wise. The clearest example that comes to mind is to compare a store downtown with a store in a mall. Downtown, the store owner, whether he rents the storefront or owns the building, cannot expect city help in repairing something like a sidewalk. On the other hand, a person renting a store front in a mall can expect managment's maintenance team to fix repair issues he has as a function of the terms of his monthly rent.

As an aspect of generating a business friendly climate, this state of affairs clearly indicates Gloversville is simply not in touch with entrepreneurialism no matter how much it tries to say it is. Ancient policies even after years of attempted change simply don't reflect a user friendly environment.

Of course, it's all an ongoing process. Eventually someone will find a way of getting our government to see past the political and truly think like a business that supports other businesses.

Lance

After a nearly four year absence, Gloversville's sidewalk program was given new life in July 2007. Unfortunately, it was something of a spur of the moment decision and forced the DPW Director, Bob Abel, to resurrect the last method of making this program work - the lottery.

A lottery is a generally inefficient method of disseminating rare funds for sidewalk work. Even if controls are put in place for income and type of property, it relies heavily on a newspaper whose circulation extends to only a rough one third of the total Gloversville population. Even if advertising in one or more of the local radio stations is added, it is still hit or miss whether those who really need the program will find out about it in time to apply.

It was recognized as early as July 2007 that Gloversville's infrastructural decay was advanced enough that council members really needed to hit the street and personally do a written assessment. So I did. What I found was a significant number of properties in Ward 2 alone that were in desperate need of replacement. Allowing for the usual income and property type restrictions there were still a number of qualifying properties available in need of this service.

Unbenownst to me, and despite the fact there had been some discussion of reviewing the process used in determining sidewalk eligibility, the program was put in place anyway, citizens signed up for the program and, wouldn't you know it, not a single one of the worst sidewalks in Ward 2 were represented by the names on the list. Why? Because those people are apparently not plugged in to the media forums in which the program was disseminated.

Today, Gloversville has a great bonus in the form of a $75,000 grant long in existence but utterly forgotten about until just a few months ago. A vast upswing in the sidewalk situation is now possible. All that remains is to decide how it will happen.

So, are we going to do the same thing over and over and over again and expect a different result? Or are we going to learn from history, realize that those who are most in need are likely the least plugged in to sources of information, and actually have the council members determine the sidewalk most in need of repair so that everyone who truly needs it can be considered.

A program that establishes income eligibility and property limitations coupled with a little leg work on the part of each ward's council member would allow for a fantastic dent in Gloversville's sidewalk disaster.

But there's more. Many of the sidewalks that need to be repaired border on city-owned properties, businesses, and homes that usually do not qualify, such as multiple dwellings.

Here we have a dilemma. The purpose of sidewalks is to provide safe pedestrian transit, and that is the program goal the city is charged with by the New York State Department of Transportation. Ignoring a huge swath of the sidewalks of the city in desperate need of repair simply because of the ownership of property might seem wise in a technical sense, but isn't going to help little Johnny or Great Aunt Emma when they fall and break a bone on those ostensibly "public" rights of way.

Some thought, I believe, needs to be made toward holding back a third, or a half, of the grant to fix even these sidewalks. Should the city recoup the money from those who don't qualify? Absolutely. However, pedestrian safety really ought to be the most important consideration in this process.

As I write this, I have no idea what the new council's sub-committee has decided. I can only hope their focus is on safety, and not just fund distribution. Fund distribution entirely misses the point.

Lance