Security Solutions for NY's Historical Records

Please distribute.

To Preserve and Protect: Security Solutions for New York’s Historical Records

Theft of historical documents plagues records repositories. With careful planning, awareness of warning signs and proactive security solutions, organizations can reduce the window of opportunity for historical record theft. Archival security expert Mimi Bowling will provide a full day of interactive curriculum on archival security,
preparing participants to take immediate action to strengthen their local security programs. Participants will receive a certificate upon completion. There is no cost.

Topics include risk awareness; insider theft; facility design and security technology; security of information systems; working with vendors and contractors; research room management and design; developing institutional security policies; procedures and post-theft response; additional topics as requested by participants.

Representatives of NY’s historical records community, including archives, governments, libraries, museums, historical societies, schools and non-profits will be given first priority. Additional seats are available for security personnel and law enforcement representatives working with these organizations. Out-of-state representatives and others interested in the topic are also encouraged to register.

September 13, 2010 (Monday)
Ontario County Safety Training Center
Canandaigua, Ontario, NY

September 14, 2010 (Tuesday)
Erie 1 BOCES
West Seneca, Erie, NY

October 4, 2010 (Monday)
Utica Public Library
Utica, Oneida, NY

October 5, 2010 (Tuesday)
Roberson Museum and Science Center
Binghamton, Broome, NY

March 7, 2011 (Monday)
Historic Huguenot Street
New Paltz, Ulster, NY

April 11, 2011 (Monday)
Crandall Public Library
Glens Falls, Warren, NY

April 18, 2011 (Monday)
Town of Massena
Massena, St. Lawrence, NY

Metro NYC Region and Long Island Region
Spring 2011
TBA

To register, please email Bturner@mail.nysed.gov or call 518-473-0130. Early registration is encouraged and appreciated; only 25 seats available.

Workshops have been made possible by the National Historical Publications and Records Commission, the New York State Historical Records Advisory Board, and the New York State Archives.

Come Out, Come Out, Wherever You Are!!!

Last May, I looked at the attendance records for the Village Board. After receiving no response from any Trustees, I wrote a letter to the New Paltz Times asking some of the greatest offenders to please inform us of the explanation for their lax participation. It wasn't a surprise that there was no response.

Since then, I'm afraid that things have gotten even worse. I used the same rough methodology used in that entry to compile attendance records for all meetings in 2008 and 2009 (minutes are not yet available for 2010). The awful attendance records are especially disturbing, as combining the attendance results of two specific Trustees still fails to yield even ONE full time Trustee.

100% Attendance Record - Of course, I have to give credit to Terry Dungan, who has attended 100% of meetings (regular, special and joint) in 2008 and 2009. The Mayor had 75 meetings total between 2008 and 2009, and was present for the entire meeting every time. But showing up is just a minimum requirement; if Dungan plans to seek reelection, he still has a long way to go before he's in the good graces of most of NP.

95% Attendance Record - Trustee Patrick O'Donnell has been present for an ENTIRE* meeting (including joint, special and regular) 95% of the time. Trustee O'Donnell had 22 meetings total, with 1 absence (regular meeting) and 0 lates or instances of leaving early.

87% Attendance Record - Former Trustee Pete Healey was present for an ENTIRE meeting (including joint, special and regular) 87% of the time. Trustee Healey had 38 eligible meetings between 2008 and 2009, with 4 absences, 0 lates and 1 instance of leaving early. In 2008, he missed 3 special meetings. In 2009, he was absent from 1 regular meeting and late to 1 regular meeting.

83% Attendance Record - Former Trustee Michael Zierler was present for an ENTIRE meeting (including joint, special and regular) 83% of the time. Trustee Zierler had 54 eligible meetings in 2008 and 2009, with 4 absences, 4 lates and 1 instance of leaving early. In 2008, he was absent from 1 regular meeting, left early from 4 regular meetings and arrived late to 1 regular meeting.

(This is where things start to get a little bit nasty. Committee, Board and Commission members are held to a 75% attendance policy in Section 31-5 of the Village Code. No such standard has been established for VB members and, frankly, it shouldn't be necessary, but apparently is.)

77% Attendance Record - Trustee Brian Kimbiz aka Brian Kazmin has been present for an ENTIRE meeting (including joint, special and regular) 77% of the time. In 2009, he had 22 eligible meetings, with 1 absence, 1 late and 1 instance of leaving early from a regular meeting and 1 absence and 1 late to special meetings. Not quite at the 75% threshold, but pretty damn close. Luckily, his presence isn't generally missed, except for the comedic relief provided on the rare occasion that he opens his mouth. Ya know, like, in defense of people who wanna paint their front door all crazy-like.

61% Attendance Record - Trustee Jean Gallucci has been present for an ENTIRE meeting (including joint, special and regular) 61% of the time. Between 2008 and 2009, she had 75 eligible meetings. For regular meetings, she has been absent from 8, late to 10 and left 4 regular meetings early. For special meetings, she has been absent 5 times and late 1 time. She has also left early from 1 joint meeting. I don't expect that Trustee Gallucci will run for a second term; her alliance with Dungan was clearly an effort to help bolster her running mate's numbers in his successful attempt to unseat Jason West. However, she is still holding office and regardless of her future ambitions, I believe it is her responsibility to fulfill the obligations that she signed up for. If she cannot, it is only right that she resign and provide an opportunity for VoNP residents to have someone appointed to actually represent them.

31% Attendance Record - Trustee Shari Osborn has been present for an ENTIRE meeting (including joint, special and regular) 31% of the time. 31%. It's not a typo. Between 2008 and 2009, she had 75 eligible meetings. I'm going to do this as a list, because it's so hard to wrap my head around it.
Regular Meetings - 8 Absences, 20 Lates, 14 Left Early
Special Meetings - 7 Absences, 2 Lates, 1 Left Early
That's a total of 15 Absences, 22 Lates and 15 instances of leaving early. I LIKE Trustee Osborn. I really, really do. But WTF is she doing in her position as Trustee?!? This record is absolutely shocking and I am appalled that someone would seek elective office, allow voters to invest their faith in the commitment of their chosen representative and then proceed to be fully present for only 23 of 75 meetings.

It's no wonder that the VoNP is in such sorry shape. I will continue to welcome any explanation from these Trustees as to their horrific participation but until it's provided, can only judge based on the numbers.

*ENTIRE meetings mean showing up before or as the meeting is called to order and staying until the meeting is adjourned. Multiple instances of leaving and returning during a single meeting are only counted as one. In order to be considered a present, a Trustee must be able to vote at the meeting. Thus, "calling in" to a meeting does not count.

PR Party Hosts "Serious Reform or Just More Shadows? A 'Civil Conversation' on Constitutional Convention," Feb. 2, 7pm, New Paltz Community Center

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Pete Healey - 845-399-3288 - Pete@PRParty.org
Brittany Turner - 916-384-6735 - Brittany@PRParty.org

NYS LEADERS VISIT HUDSON VALLEY TO DISCUSS CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
Proportional Representation Party Convenes "Civil Conversation"

NEW PALTZ - On Tuesday, February 2, the Proportional Representation Party is sponsoring Serious Reform or Just More Shadows?: A "Civil Conversation" About Constitutional Convention. According to PR Party Founder and former Village of New Paltz Trustee Pete Healey, "Our Governor, Lieutenant Governor, State Comptroller and one of our US Senators were not elected to those positions by voters in NYS. There are serious constitutional issues surrounding these appointed, rather than elected, officials. The legislature elected this November will decide on the districts for all state legislators and our congressional delegation for the next 10 years. This legislature ought not be entrusted with that responsibility without a serious reconsideration of our dysfunctional constitution."

NYS Assembly Minority Leader Brian Kolb (R-129th) will be joining Healey to discuss his recently introduced legislation that would, if approved, allow for a statewide referendum on a Constitutional Convention this November, instead of 2017 as currently permitted. The legislation would also prohibit sitting members of the state legislature from serving as delegates to the convention. "There is a growing feeling among New Yorkers that their state government has stopped working for them - that it's grown too costly, unresponsive and disconnected from the lives of those it was supposed to serve. It is time New Yorkers took their state government back - it begins by convening a People's Convention, which is the first step toward restoring accountability," said Kolb. Healey concurred, noting "People rightly fear that the Constitutional Convention could become an insider's game, as is the state legislature. A convention comprised of real people, not legislative groundhogs, is the only way to discuss meaningful reforms."

Also expected to attend are Assemblymember Richard Brodsky (D-92nd) and a representative of Gerald Benjamin, Director of the Center for Research, Regional Education and Outreach (CRREO). Both have been at the forefront of discussions surrounding the potential Constitutional Convention. "Civil conversation" was coined by Brodsky, who has been one of the few Democrats to discuss the possibility of a Constitutional Convention, advocating a slow and tempered approach. Benjamin has voiced pro-Convention sentiments in the Wall Street Journal and Albany Times Union through a series of editorials co-authored with former NYS Governor Mario Cuomo. They will be joined by elected officials, community leaders, activists and residents from across the Mid-Hudson Valley.

The Press Conference will be held from 7:00pm until 7:30pm at the New Paltz Community Center, 1 Veterans Drive, New Paltz. The moderated discussion about the rationale for and impact of a Constitutional Convention will follow, from 7:30pm until 9:00pm.

The PR Party was founded in 2007 to deal with a number of concerns surrounding the structure and functions of NY's local and state government. Initiating the process for a Constitutional Convention is one of its chief priorities in 2010. Additional information is available at the PR Party website, www.PRParty.org.

###

Health Care, SRSLY?!?

Who are we thanking, and for what??? The Obama logo suggests we are, in fact, thanking the golden boy himself, but... HUH?!?!?!

So I'm getting really aggravated at the stupid viral Facebook status message about health care. If you haven't seen it, I'll paste it below for the sake of recordkeeping, but UNDERSTAND THAT I AM NOT ENDORSING IT!

"No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and nobody should go broke because they get sick. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day."
Sigh. How can we be so misguided? It breaks my heart. So, of course, I put up a status message expressing my disdain ("believes in it, supports it, wants it to happen, but recognizes that the approach being taken is counter-productive and essentially sabotage. no number of dedicated facebook statuses will change that.") and all sorts of crankiness ensues.

One friend, a fellow Green, used the status as a basis for opening conversation with some friends who are not as engaged in the issue. OK. I guess I can deal with this, even though I don't really see the point. If you're in need of an introductory health care conversation via facebook this late in the game... um... yeah. Plus, I've never known a conversation that accuses the opposition of essentially being murderers to lead to a lot of enlightened soul searching, but who knows.
Another, this one a Democrat, hasn't participated in the homogeneous status posting but felt resentful and attacked based on my obvious disgust with all things big D. This one is kinda complicated. Instead of being offended by my hatred of this sham of a party, shouldn't she be offended by what her party has done? I'm hugely offended, and I'm not even a member!

Does she really believe in these issues or does she believe in the collective solidarity of standing for absolutely nothing? If it's the latter, well, whatevs, but if it's the former, she should be outraged and, more importantly, she should be doing something about it. Why not work to change the structure and absence of any values exhibited by this party for decades? Why not refuse to donate to, volunteer with or vote for another one of these lying imbeciles until "hope" and "change" actually become meaningful? Better yet, why not just walk away?
The majority of people endorsed and elected by the Democrats are manipulating and defacing whatever ideological remnants still guide the party, assuming there are any at all. Registered Democrats would be much better served by coming to terms with the fact their party's promises are hollow. They need to start supporting the issues and candidates who are actually worth something instead of clinging to a party that doesn't seem to espouse much of anything.

Another friend, this one from my hometown, embraced the "to hell with them all" mentality and suggested I let her know once I have that up-and-running. Which is exactly right. Because the "third parties" aren't doing much of a bang-up job, either.

Then, as if the status updates weren't enough, a Democratic elected official from my former county of residence posts a link to a petition, begging Obama to please support a single-payer option. The first line actually reads, "We worked so hard for real change." And the whole thing appears to be sponsored by the Obama campaign itself (or else someone is seriously engaging in trademark violations). WTF?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
So, let me get this straight.

1. Barack Obama campaigns on a platform that includes a public option for health care, available to all Americans.
2. People "work so hard for real change" and Barack Obama is elected President.
3. Barack Obama and the other Democratic hacks take the public option "off the table."
4. We beg the people we elected less than a year ago to do what they said and keep the promises that they made during their campaigns....

Is that about right? When they refuse to "listen" (aka do what they said they were going to do in the first place), was it because we didn't have enough people at the rallies? Was it because corporate dollars somehow controlled the debate, and our elected officials can't be expected to allow their promises to stand up against the pressure? Was it because we didn't get enough facebook statuses or signatures on the petition supporting it? Or is it because we've elected a bunch of liars and can't admit that all that "hope" and "change" was BS?

We obviously can't rely on the two major parties, and third parties are sidelined due to a combination of systemic ineffectiveness, disorganization and general fluffiness. And that's assuming that we even have real third parties, rather than just branches of the existing two, which I'm really beginning to question (but that conversation is for another time).
Now what?

This entire mess just reaffirms the fact that it isn't a problem with partisanship or corporate interests or lobbyists or apathy or any of the other junk excuses that we come up with. The disaster that we know as the American political system is completely upside down, backwards, inside out and knotted up. It's a super unfunny joke and we should scrap it and start again. Yeah, that seems really complicated and challenging, but at least it's proactive rather than waiting for the inevitable catastrophe guaranteed by the existing system.

We have so much diversity, so many different views, such high stakes that we simply cannot count on a two-party-majority-but-only-by-a-little-electoral-W-T-F-is-the-point-college-but-it's-how-we-were-founded tradition. THIS IS NO WAY TO GOVERN, PEOPLE! Maybe it made sense when the population of the country was 3 million people, but so did slavery and property laws and a bunch of other really dumb ideas that obviously sucked. Why we invoke tradition so fervently to protect a system that is blatant in its disservice to absolutely everyone is beyond me.

Wayyyy back in the day, when we had our first kinda-sorta-real elections in the US, there were two parties: the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. Well, guess what. We still have the Democratic-Republicans, but they've split into two wings of the same party. Aside from a few issues and a few approaches, there really aren't tremendous differences between the two (you get a prize if you can come up with one that is actually, truly, really, really, really meaningful). To top it all off, Democratic-Republicans used the terms interchangably, calling themselves Democrats, Republicans, Democratic-Republicans, and, yes, even Federalists and Federalist-Republicans! Ok, so we let a bunch of really confused people set up a really confused system.

Instead of continuing to try to create differences where, really, few exist, maybe we can try letting everyone have a say and work with the differences that are actually there? Maybe, instead of basking in the glory of shutting out thousands and, even, millions of American citizens from leadership opportunities in our governments we could try letting everyone have some representation, mixing things up a bit and see where that gets us. Maybe we should just consider the merits of a system based in proportional representation, where the proportion of votes cast for parties and candidates determines who governs. It seems to make sense and it's gotta be a helluva lot more productive, transparent and honest than the gig we've got going now.

Dontcha think?

Committed Volunteers

Sorry for the hiatus, I've been packing up everything I own to get a better tan 3,000 miles away. Luckily, I'm done with that now.

This week's Village Board Meeting, the last for The Gatekeeper and The Renegade, was a disaster. Because there was no meeting. See, The Mayor and The Gatekeeper showed up, but The Renegade, The Butterfly and The Financier were all absent. Apparently The Financier's absence was excused (this time) due to a personal issue. No one seems to know where The Butterfly was, although her husband was present for the first time in anyone's memory. The Renegade was simply out, due to personal obligations and priorities that may or may not have been communicated or excused. So, without a quorum, the meeting was never called to order and business in the VoNP is stalled, yet again.

In the wake of The Butterfly's unjustified and unprofessional tirade against the NPFD, many of her defenders are pointing to the meager stipend and supreme level of commitment that she has demonstrated in her capacity as Trustee. So, as is my way, I did some data entry and found even my overly cynical self disappointed by the results.

Instead of dealing with the personal qualities of The Butterfly as Trustee, and without even attempting to tackle the subjective issue of voting record, let's stick to something we can all agree is a requirement of office: attendance. We all know that Trustees should show up and participation is apparently a bonus. But I've been stating that The Butterfly and The Financier fall far short of even this basic obligation and we don't need to have a philosophical debate about positions or abilities; the facts back this one up.

Section 31-5 of the Village Code outlines that "Any person appointed to a board, commission or committee of the Village shall be expected to attend at least 75% in number of the regular and special meetings of such board, commission or committee during a period of 12 consecutive months." There does not appear to be an attendance policy for elected board members, but I think it is reasonable to assume that these officers should be held to this standard at a minimum. I'm assuming the absence of this specification is for this exact reason; we shouldn't have to hold elected officials to an attendance policy. After all, they're the ones who chose to seek public office!

Of the 54 available meetings for all of 2008 and 2009 (38 available meetings for The Renegade), who actually shows up?

For the purpose of my averages, "attendance" is considered complete attendance. You show up to the meeting, on time, and stay until the meeting is adjourned. I did not count instances where someone leaves the meeting for a few minutes, as these are expected to occur. Also, as a courtesy to The Butterfly, I did not count instances where she left for significant blocks of time, as it would be nearly impossible to calculate due to the frequency and duration of such "emergency" phone calls, snacking, socializing and web surfing. Each instance of arriving late and leaving early, even from the same meeting, is counted as a separate, distinct violation. I could've weighted lates and earlys as being less offensive than full absences, and also could've formed penalties based on the extent of lateness or leaving-earlyness, but I didn't. They're all equally offensive as far as I'm concerned, plus it's early and I'm not that big into math. I'll gladly email my spreadsheet to anyone who would like to tackle it.

- 100% Attendance Record. The Mayor has attended all joint, special, and regular meetings of the Village Board. He has not been late, nor left early, for any of these meetings. This isn't surprising; The Mayor strikes me as exactly the type of person who would graduate High School with the prestigious K-12 Perfect Attendance Award. Plus, they're his meetings and his agenda and clearly nobody else is going to run them, so it makes sense that he would have to be present in order for business to be conducted.

- 87% Attendance Record. The Renegade, with fewer meetings being counted since he did not take office until June 1, 2008, has missed 1 regular meeting and was late to 1 regular meeting (although, at the request of the VB, was present at a School Board meeting as the Village representative on the evening in question). He was present at both joint meetings and missed 3 special meetings, one of which he would've been late to had it lasted longer than 10 minutes.

- 83% Attendance Record. The Gatekeeper is in third place, being absent from 2 regular meetings, late to 1 regular meeting and leaving early for 4 regular meetings. The Gatekeeper has faced a tremendous loss in his family in 2009, thus excusing one of these absences. He was absent from 1 special meeting and 1 joint meeting.

- 65% Attendance Record. The Financier, in a dead heat with The Butterfly, has an abysmal attendance record. She has been absent from 7 regular meetings, late to 5 regular meetings, and left early for 3 regular meetings. She has also been absent from 3 special meetings.

- 54% Attendance Record. The Butterfly comes in last, being absent from 6 regular meetings, late to 12 regular meetings and leaving early for 5 regular meetings. She has also been absent from 2 special meetings.

Now I know there will still be some who are uppity and defensive about the attendance record.

"But the meetings run so LATE!" Well, shorten the agenda or your soliloquies. Either way.

"But they can't be expected to be at everything, all the time!" I agree. But Village Board meetings are a basic requirement of their office. Showing up occasionally is disrespectful to the voters, the community and the other officials.

"Well, The Financier CALLED into a meeting, shouldn't that count?!" No, it shouldn't. If you're not present to vote, you're not there. For all we know, Scott Schulte could've taken the called-in Trustee hostage, forcing them to make comments at gunpoint.

I am sure there are plenty more pathetic excuses for why Trustees shouldn't be expected to participate in their own meetings. Please, let me know. Especially The Butterfly and Financier. I think an explanation is long overdue.

Also, I think it's worth pointing out that the two Trustee-Elects, Patrick O'Donnell and Brian Kimbiz, have been showing up to meetings for a few weeks. Kudos. Sadly, no one has ever seen their faces at a meeting until recently. We can only hope that they follow the example of The Mayor, The Renegade and The Gatekeeper when it comes to attendance. Actually, we can hope O'Donnell does. We might be better off if Kimbiz just stays home.

The Wall of Shame

When an election is as close as the one on May 5, you just KNOW there's at least a few people wandering around in a daze, kicking themselves thinking they could've been that ONE vote. I've reviewed the voter rolls and there are surely a few local noteworthies who are doing exactly that. Who do you think feels the worst for skipping out on election day?

Shari Osborn (who was at Village Hall an hour after the polls closed, presumably for a secret and illegal meeting with the Mayor and Trustee Gallucci, who were also sneaking around the building)
Don Kerr
Guy Kempe
Ray Curran
Eric Roth
Dawn Elliott
Valerie Erwin
Linda Welles
Karl Budman
Charlie Karsten
Judy Mage
Dave Holt
Susan Holt
Dorothy Jessup
Judy Swallow
Amos Sunshine
Steve Stanne
Donna Smith
Steve O'Shea
Amanda Sisenstein
Jamie Levato

More to come... I have omitted named of people who forgot to change their registration to their current village addresses, but you know who you are. Seriously?? Change it. Jeez.

When Kimbiz vacates his seat in the near future, these are probably the very individuals who should be responsible for leading the movement to appoint Pete Healey to that vacancy and ensure his reelection in the anticipated special election next year.

Reader Responses

Some reader responses to the VONP election results:

• Wow.
• This is about as depressing a blog posting as I am ever going to read. A schmendrick on the village board. I wondered if it was a waste of time to vote since only 2 candidates are on the ballot for 2 positions. I'm glad I voted for Pete, so at least this is not my fault. Jesus.
• Wow. Good Luck Vo'NP! You will need it. And let us remember NOT to paint all student candidates with the same brush: Dan Torres (for NP school board) is intelligent, responsible, aware, and erudite, and he can even speak in complete sentences!
• Good to know the I's will be crossed and the T's will be dotted!
• Brian is scary.
  
• Now a minimal lesion, perhaps acceptable, but a great lesion?
• What a turn of events... unbelievable...
• Are you serious??
• No!!!! Doucher Brian is in??? Kill me now!!!!!!
• Pete was going to be the only voice of reason left on that board and the only one that would question the Mayor. This is really bad for the village... are people asleep?
  

A sad day for New Paltz and a happy day for democracy

Brian Kimbiz, write-in candidate for the Village Board, has just usurped Pete Healey by 1 vote in a recount.

I've been arguing with people for weeks on the merit of write-in candidacies, while they constantly dismissed the possibility of a write-in victory, instead choosing to sidle up to candidates who are on the ballot, insisting that they WILL be our new trustees. That's how our system works. It's democracy.

For those of us that support the elimination of unnecessarily restrictive and convoluted election laws, student participation and an open electoral process, this is a victory.

For those of us who want improvements for our community, progress and restructuring, and checks and balances for a terminally ill government, this is devastating.

Many of us fall into both categories and that might help explain why it all makes me so nauseous.

I have long been an advocate for student participation in local politics. I have also been a strong advocate for write-in campaigns, as I believe the arbitrary rules governing ballot access and the petitioning process are pointless and unnecessary. Being able to jump through a few hoops doesn't qualify someone to hold office; being unfamiliar with the silly process shouldn't disqualify someone from being a valid candidate. There are, however, many situations where the write-in candidate is not only incapable of jumping through those silly hoops but is also a horrendous candidate. This is the case with Brian Kimbiz.

We all remember the Julia Walsh fiasco and many of us cringe when thinking back to the horribly misguided decision we made in the voting booth on May 6, 2003. Did our community survive? Absolutely. Was it a painful, miserable and frustrating experience? Extremely so. Is it something I believe we can weather again, especially considering the existing board makeup? I am doubtful. Could it be worse? It pains me to say it, but yes. And it gets worse right now.

On the Brian Kimbiz for Village Board Facebook group, Brian proudly proclaimed,

"THE NEW PALTZ VILLAGE BOARD ELECTIONS IS MAY 5TH."

(is May 5th??)

He continues...

"THE BOARD IS COMPOSED OF 6 MEMBERS, THE MAYOR, DEPUTY MAYOR, AND FOUR TRUSTEES."

(6 members?? Really??)

Wait, there's plenty more...

"DESPITE THE FACT THE STUDENT POPULATION IS ABOUT 6,000, EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN THE NUMBER OF VILLAGE RESIDENTS, WE HAVE NO REPRESENTATION ON A BOARD THAT HANDLES EVERY DECISION IN THE VILLAGE, THE VILLAGE WE ALL LIVE IN."

(VONP Population in 2000 census: 6,034. SUNY New Paltz student population in 2007: ~2,000. Sigh.)

"CURRENTLY THE MAYOR AND THE BOARD ARE WORKING TO MAKE RENTING HOUSES OFF CAMPUS IMPOSSIBLE FOR STUDENTS BY PASSING LEGISLATION THAT WOULD LIMIT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT CAN LIVE IN ONE HOME."

(Um... wow, I have NO idea where that came from but... huh???)

So I guess we can all agree that Trustee Kimbiz certainly needs to be schooled in New Paltz 101 (grammar and proper use of caps lock may also be added to his courseload). But, to be fair, perhaps we should also consider where he stands on the issues.

From his New Paltz Green Party Questionnaire, on his priorities:

"I also feel like new development of homes and commerce is very important in and around the Village of New Paltz. The decisions that are made now have long term effects down the road. This means that any new additions to this town should go through the highest scrutiny before any decisions are made. I believe one of the greatest things about New Paltz is the size and membership of its citizens. Also housing situations concerning tenants, landlords, students, and most importantly home-owners need to be carefully considered. Housing conditions, zoning laws, taxes, health issues, among many other things needs mediated in order to create the best community for all of its members."

Wha...? Also, I tend to be a bit of a bitch when it comes to the interchangeable use of Town/Village. When I'm talking with a friend, it's just obnoxious and picky. When it comes to a Village Trustee, I think my annoyance is justified. (Throughout his in-person interview, Brian continued to talk about his vision for the Town Board and his commitment to serving on the body, so as to improve "stuff" in the Town of New Paltz. Members on the interview committee were actually becoming confused as to which office he was seeking.)

When it came to questions about specific issues, Trustee Kimbiz rarely had an answer. At one point, a member of the interview committee questioned his decision to run for an office that he clearly knows little about. Trustee Kimbiz' response was that he would like to get elected first, then learn about the issues and develop positions and opinions later. He saw no reason to understand the intricacies of concerns facing our community until after he was actually elected. He has, however, "watched Town Board meetings on TV a coupla times."

Some highlights on those local issues:

What is your position on Town and Village Unification?

At this moment I do not have a position on the unification of the Village and Town. I will have to better hear both sides of the issue.

What steps will you take to improve current tenant/landlord relationships as well as the current housing situation in general? 
 
 


I think I can be a great lesion between tenants/landlords. Being that I am a tenant I feel safe housing conditions are very important. 
 


What will you do to ameliorate current traffic problems? 
 
 


I am not sure but I believe either making more roads, or increasing flow on certain roads are both bad ideas.

Could you describe your fiscal philosophy? 
 
 
 
 


I believe government should provide services that the community desires at the best price possible, however I also think high taxes are bad, so money must be effectively directed to the things that serve the community best.

What will you do to improve the relationships between SUNY and municipal governments? 
 
 
 


I am again a perfect liaison between the two. I would be coming from the SUNY (working as Senate Vice-Chair) to the other.

What concrete steps do you plan to take to increase transparency in your office and make it easier for the public to participate in the governing process? 
 
 
 


I want to use the Internet as a huge resource in staying connected to me. I think this can be so beneficial as it makes access to me almost instant. My email goes straight to my phone. Aside from that I plan to have a web forum where the public can see my day-to-day work for them and even respond. I think my tech savvy can have a large influence on getting very close to me.

You can't make this stuff up, people. And, honestly, I don't know why anyone would want to. You can read Trustee Kimbiz' full questionnaire at the New Paltz Greens website.

As for the future, we can expect that the Dungan/Gallucci reign will continue with rather catastrophic consequences. We can expect that without Trustees Zierler and Healey, the maniacal schemes of these individuals will magnify unchecked. We can expect that Village employees will continue their work, except this time without allies or security. We can expect that there will be no progress, no open communication and no innovation.

And, if my assessment is correct, we can expect that Julia Walsh can finally pass the "Worst VONP Trustee" legacy onto Trustee Kimbiz. Congratulations, New Paltz. We get the government that we deserve.

100 Days Down, 1361 to Go...

I constantly find myself explaining why President Obama, and Democrats as a whole, make me physically ill. I try to come up with little analogies, try to stick to facts, try to reason and rationalize, try to appeal to common interests... these conversations are always futile and I've pretty much given up trying. Obamaites are blind and I think they kinda like it that way. The whole "hope" concept is just so warm and fuzzy that it's far preferable to our sadistic reality. It's also a lot easier to "hope" than it is to "change"... oh, right, that one has been coopted, too.

I received a 100-day report card from the US Green Party and thought it summed up just a few of the reasons why I'm not jumping on the icky Obama bandwagon. The people who already agree with it will continue to agree and the people who are obsessed with Obama will continue to be defensive and creepy. I figured I'd throw it up here regardless.


After 100 days of Obama's presidency, it has become clear that we are a far cry from where we need to be as far as civil liberties, the environment, the economy, health care, and the military. The Green Party has real solutions to the problems at hand. Please look over the 100 Day Report Card below. Keep in mind that C is "good enough"; in percentages, in order to get a "better than average" grade, you need to score 80%.

Civil Liberties: F
The Executive Branch is finally following the law by releasing and repudiating the Bush Administration's legal memos that attempted to justify torture. The President also raised the possibility of prosecuting those responsible for providing that justification.

However, the Obama Administration defends the illegal wiretapping program, leaves the door open to outsourcing torture through "extraordinary rendition," and argues that prisoners can be denied habeas corpus if they are shipped to the Bagram prison in Afghanistan instead of Guantanamo! The Administration also opposes a Congressional truth commission to investigate torture by the Bush Presidency, although citizen pressure may successfully force an investigation.

Obama supporter Glenn Greenwald, who writes for Salon.com, recently wrote: "What's being asserted here by the Obama DOJ is the virtually absolute power of presidential secrecy, the right to break the law with no consequences, and immunity from surveillance lawsuits so sweeping that one can hardly believe that it's being claimed with a straight face."

The Green Party supports a ban on torture, the repeal of the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and opposes the warrantless surveillance of US citizens, 'extraordinary rendition' of prisoners to extract information, and denial of habeas corpus and due process.

Environment: D+
The Obama Administration has taken some positive steps on global warming by allowing the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants, initiating legislation to reduce greenhouse gases, and providing funds for alternative energy in the recently passed economic stimulus bill.

Unfortunately, the Administration has committed to spending only $145 billion on alternative energy over the next 10 years, about 0.1% of our country's gross domestic product (GDP). In contract, the proposed military budget for 2010 alone is $664 billion. The Administration supports nuclear power and "clean" coal, and its proposed cap and trade scheme is vulnerable to abuses such as free giveaway licenses for utilities to emit greenhouse gases. In the European Union, free licenses have resulted in increased emissions from coal plants that have offset the reductions gained from new wind power.

The Green Party advocates a moratorium on new coal fired power plants, ending subsidies to the nuclear and fossil fuel industries, increasing CAFE standards, and ending mountaintop removal mining.

Economy: D-
The Obama Administration's economic stimulus bill is headed in the right direction with new infrastructure projects that can put Americans back to work. Plans to let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire are also encouraging.

However, the stimulus was too small and too focused on tax cuts. The Administration's plans for repairing the financial system are likely to result in a great deal of wasteful spending, reward those who got us into the current economic crisis, and ignore the fundamental problems. It is unfortunate that the Administration has rejected calls to nationalize the largest and most insolvent banks in favor of a plan that loans nearly $1 trillion to hedge funds to indirectly subsidize the banks. By contrast, Wall Street Journal recently reported that only "10% of borrowers in some stage of foreclosure appear to be eligible for the federal aid to homeowners program."

The Green party advocates ending trade in the highly speculative financial instruments that helped cause the crisis, restoring regulations on banks, breaking up financial conglomerates, promoting small local banks and credit unions, implementing a much larger public works program, and working to build a steady state economy based upon sustainability.

Health Care: D+
The Obama Administration has proposed substantial increases in federal spending in order to extend health coverage to more Americans. The Administration's spending plans will extend coverage only to about one-half of uninsured Americans are are short of effective methods for cost control.

The Green Party continues to advocate the single-payer health care systems as the most efficient and effective way to deliver health care to all Americans.

Foreign Policy/Military: D
The Obama Administration has taken a few encouraging steps, such as starting to at least open talks with foreign leaders. The President has shown an increased willingness to negotiate with Iran, and has stated plans to discuss nuclear arms reductions with Russia. However, there are numerous loopholes in the agreement to withdraw all troops from Iraq by the end of 2011, and the Administration is re-deploying some of the troops to Afghanistan. The US is also continuing to launch military operations in Pakistan that have killed and displaced many civilians and contributed to destabilizing the country. The Administration also plans to maintain unnecessarily high levels of military spending.

The Green Party advocates the complete and immediate withdrawal of all US troops and contractors from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq and deep reductions in military spending.

Educated Voters are Happy Voters

The New Paltz Green Party has initiated yet another a wonderful public service. It has established a "Candidate Questionnaire" process where candidates have an opportunity to fill out questionnaires related to the party platform and a number of other relevant local issues.

The candidates are then interviewed by the GP and given an opportunity to revise their questionnaire. The completed questionnaires are posted online for the sake of voter education. This interview is also where decisions regarding endorsements are made, when applicable.

I want to commend the candidates who participated in this process: Dan Torres, KT Tobin-Flusser, Brian Kimbiz and Pete Healey. These candidates recognize that writing down and sharing their positions helps contribute to the overall education of voters in our community and demonstrates a strong commitment to their platforms and priorities.

I also want to commend the New Paltz Green Party for creating this wonderful opportunity. It certainly highlights the competence, organization and political savvy of this group, as they are the only New Paltz-based political party that has instituted a questionnaire process in conjunction with their endorsements and interviews.

Completed questionnaires for the Village Board candidates Healey and Kimbiz (O'Donnell has, thus far, declined) are available under the "Elections" section of the New Paltz Greens website. Completed School Board questionnaires for Tobin-Flusser and Torres will be available on the website by the end of the week (Kerr has, thus far, declined).

Blank questionnaires may be filled out by any person seeking elective office, including those launching write-in campaigns, and will also be available on the website. There are 2 versions of the questionnaire: a general questionnaire based on the GP's platform and an office-specific questionnaire tailored to address local issues as they pertain to the position being sought. Candidates should fill out both.

The Village election is Tuesday, May 5, from 12:00pm-9:00pm at the Village Firehouse, located at 25 Plattekill Ave.

The School Board election is Tuesday, May 19, from 12:00pm-9:00pm at the New Paltz High School, located at 130 South Putt Corners Rd.

Village Candidate Forum

On Friday, May 1, Bill Mulcahy will be filming a Candidate's Forum for all announced Village of New Paltz Trustee Candidates. Invited participants include Pete Healey, Patrick O'Donnell and Brian Kimbiz.

The Forum will be broadcast live at 7:00pm (assuming the modulator is working) on New Paltz Public Access Channel 23. To submit a question in advance, please contact Bill Mulcahy at wmulcahy@hvc.rr.com. Alternately, a call-in number will be available during the live broadcast.

The Village Elections will be held on Tuesday, May 5, from 12:00pm until 9:00pm at the Village Firehouse, located at 25 Plattekill Ave. There are 2 Trustee seats open, each with a 4-year term. Healey and O'Donnell are both on the ballott; Kimbiz has announced a write-in campaign. Any other person can also be written in as a candidate.

To cast a write-in vote on a lever machine, follow the instructions below.
1. Find the column for the office where you wish to cast a write-in vote.
2. Lift the metal door at the top of the column.
3. Behind the door, there should be a blank piece of white paper. If there is ANYTHING written on the paper, alert an election inspector without opening the curtain; just stick your head outside without pulling any levers.
4. Write in the name of the candidate you wish to cast a vote for.
5. Finish casting your votes by pulling levers and/or writing in names. When you are finished, pull the large lever at the bottom to open the curtain. This will record your votes.

***Please note: Lifting the metal write-in slide at the top of any column will count as a vote. You will NOT be able to pull a lever in that column once the slide has been lifted, even if you write nothing on the paper.

***Please note: Write-in votes for candidates whose names appear on the ballot will not be counted.

***Please note: You may cast a write-in vote for anyone you want, for as many offices as you want.

***Please note: You may bring pens, pencils, palm cards, voter guides, etc. into the polling place and voter booth. These do not constitute electioneering materials.

It could be a sitcom, if only it were funny...

The New Paltz Village Board is beyond salvation at this point. It almost reminds me of a sitcom except nothing about the situation is funny. At all.

First, the cast of characters:

The Mayor - living in a bubble, working incredibly hard, accomplishing absolutely nothing and believing he is simply misunderstood as the sole protector of our community. He thinks he is a visionary, except no one else shares his vision or even knows what it is. The Mayor occasionally gives information to others, but would really rather be left to implement his plan without any consultation from the rest of the Board, the community or the staff. He willfully disregards others and consistently takes action without approval or discussion. The Mayor is generally a likeable person and a terrible politician.
Policy example: Singlehandedly instituting a "spending freeze" that is applied inconsistently and erratically, looking in all the wrong places when it comes time to balance the budget.
Priorities: ?????
Quote: "This isn't information that you need to know."

The Financier - concerned with only one thing, which is particularly problematic, since The Financier is secretive, incapable of working with other people, clearly has little interest in this job outside of "liability" and "financial" issues and has no commitment to this community outside of her rigid, narrow view which usually amounts to "When I was Clerk-Treasurer, this is how I did it, so it's right." The unspoken details involving her departure from her previous position suggest the opposite may be true and she continues to prove this in her work with the Village. She would rather be at home than at meetings, and this is apparent on the occasions when she actually shows up. She contributes little outside of her 2 specific interests and is generally unprepared for meetings except when it comes to nickel-and-diming and acting as the extremely overbearing and overprotective parent of the Village, which is usually detrimental to the people who actually live in the Village.
Policy example: Requiring permission slips to use the parks.
Priorities: Bills & Claims
Quote: "This is a liability."

The Butterfly - seems like an accidental Trustee most of the time, The Butterfly flits around and doesn't fully commit to much except those issues that pertain to her immediate environment. Moriello Pool, parks, sidewalks and trees are of utmost importance, but nuts-and-bolts aren't really her thing. She is cute, colorful and bubbly but can becomes incredibly hostile and irrational if she feels threatened. In these cases, she engages in long-winded and disjointed diatribes toward the source of her discomfort without any real suggestions for improvement. She then follows up with a Letter to the Editor reiterating her annoyance, and drops out of sight for a while until she calms down. She goes out of her way to antagonize stakeholders that she personally dislikes, while making remarkable concessions for those she considers important members of our community. If The Butterfly were a student, she'd have been run out of town by now, but because she's a mom her constant absences and latenesses are generally overlooked.
Policy example: Hmm... well, she volunteers for a lot of stuff.
Priorities: Anything that impacts her interests and those of her family.
Quote: "Sorry I'm late!"

The Gatekeeper - seems like the only veteran Trustee (this characterization surprisingly belongs to The Mayor, although The Financier will argue that she's a veteran, too). Even though The Gatekeeper has only served 1 full term on the Board, he knows the Village inside out. The Gatekeeper has been diligent, thoughtful and detail-oriented. The Gatekeeper has a slight tendency to be rigid and overly invested in his view of what is right, but has grown tremendously since his election in 2005. Unfortunately, his tenure on the Board began with a Mayor who was far from ideal. He then supported the current Mayor and... shit. It actually does get worse! So he's finally had enough and is leaving his position effective June 1. This is a huge loss to the Village, as his likely replacement is another dopey, unknown, bland, non-committal transplant from the Huguenot Street Dems (think: David Lewis). Blech. He is attentive to the concerns of Village employees and is often called upon in his capacity as Deputy Mayor to engage with these individuals, as the Mayor is far too busy in his tower at all hours of the night to actually be bothered by people.
Priorities: Process, Building, Zoning, Planning.
Policy example: Woodland Ponds.
Quote: "OK, but can we talk about the agenda now?"

The Renegade - the newest Trustee, but you wouldn't know it. A longstanding member of this community, The Renegade has a focused list of priorities and will do whatever it takes to see that these priorities are achieved. He is clear, unapologetic, driven and fully aware of the staggering political barriers to moving his agenda forward. While The Renegade has taken a tempered, patient approach, it is obvious that his patience is quickly running out. The only Board ally that The Renegade has is The Gatekeeper, probably because they are the only Trustees who are actually doing anything. The Renegade is the only Trustee who interacts with staff at all levels on a regular basis and identifies issues of concern in order to get things done. He speaks his mind and consistently highlights the hypocrisy and self-preservationist tendencies of other Board members. His view of his position as Village Trustee is realistic, characterized by humility, humor and the recognition that VONP Trustees aren't actually the most important elected officials on the planet. The Renegade is about to come into his own and the other Trustees should be wary but will continue to be oblivious.
Policy example: Revisions to the Code on Blasting.
Priorities: Unification, Public Access Television, Village Employees.
Quote: "We act formally when we should be informal, and informally when we should be formal."

Now to set the stage:

It is April 15 at a workshop meeting to discuss the budget, which must be approved by April 30. After spending the first hour of the meeting fixing a botched SEQRA process, the Board finally gets down to business.

(Absent: The Butterfly).

The Mayor: We can either have a really long meeting or a really short one. I suggest everyone send me their ideas and then I will look at them and decide if I agree.

The Financier: I agree, and I want to point out that I can't work like this and should be left to look at the budget at home. Give me original worksheets so I don't have to go through the budget line by line. When you do that, I'll look at it. There's no reason that we should go through all of this together. I have to leave early so I think we should just end the meeting now. The morning comes early.

The Gatekeeper: Well, I think there's something between going line by line and addressing obvious concerns tonight.

The Mayor: OK, great. So everyone send me your suggestions and I'll decide if I want to look at them. Oh, right, Renegade, do you have anything to add?

The Renegade: Uh... yeah.

The Mayor: (sigh) OK, what did you need to discuss?

The Renegade: All of it!

The Mayor: (BIG SIGH)

The Renegade: Well, you didn't distribute copies of my suggestions to anyone, but luckily I have a copy right here. We need to look at the attorneys, engineers, etc. etc. etc.

(A really good conversation occurs where The Gatekeeper and The Renegade make brilliant points, the Mayor pretends to concede but writes down completely different numbers in his notes and The Financier only communicates with the Village Treasurer).

The Mayor: OK, great. I'll look at this with the Treasurer and I will do what I want to anyway. Meeting adjourned!

Village Treasurer: Um, were you going to make a motion to make any of these changes? At this point in the budget process, it's necessary to make all changes by a vote of the Board.

The Mayor: Oh... right. Um... did anyone want to make a motion? Renegade?

The Renegade: Well, no one actually agreed to anything, so no. What is the deadline?

Village Treasurer: April 30.

The Mayor: OK, great. So we'll discuss this at our next meeting. Goodnight!


So... I've gotta wonder... these people are actually ELECTED to do this work?!?!?!?!?!?!