Friday, May 28

Special Double Radio Post: Is 'Option 4' still an option?

In our last two Finger Lakes Morning News interviews with Ted Baker on WGVA radio (April 16 and May 21), we discussed our point of view that Ontario County’s process for deciding which one of five building options ought to be pursued for the permanent home of Finger Lakes Community College (FLCC) Geneva Extension Center had a preordained outcome, an outcome which, itself, was ill conceived.
Now we wonder if Option 4-- to demolish the architecturally and historically significant 1926 Geneva High School edifice and build a new, significantly smaller structure-- is still an option. It seems that the County rammed through Option 4 only to discover that state law may not allow the plan to go forward.
What the County finds itself up against are two state-placed hurdles. First, County Administrator Geoff Astles says that he has received notice that purchasing the building will trigger a series of code enforcement actions that would render the building unusable for FLCC’s intended purpose. Second, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) must sign off on the County’s demolition and mitigation plan before any state funds can be drawn down for the project.
In a sense, the County has found itself having gone full circle back to the position held by some opponents of the plan. The 1926 building may, in fact, have to stand with FLCC remaining the primary tenant.
On Friday, May 21st, FLCC announced it would seek to renew its current lease with the Geneva City School District, rather than executing the purchase offer that was on the table. The purchase offer was used by the Projects Committee as the main reason that additional options could not be considered. They announced that the purchase had to be made before the end of June and therefore, time was of the essence. Turns out that isn’t the case after all. And as Capraro pointed out in the April interview, anytime a multi-million dollar project hinges on an accelerated deadline, there’s probably a lot being overlooked, a lot of important reasons to slow down and do a more thorough review.
In the May radio appearance, we challenged the Mayor of Geneva’s suggestion that it was “arrogant” for the Geneva City Council to take a position on the FLCC project that did more than just support whatever the County proposed. Arrogant? Since the County had asked for a resolution from the City on the project it was not arrogant but rather the responsible action to take. As we had covered in our post, state legislation that forbids state money to be used to demolish architecturally and historically significant buildings, and the 1926 building is one of them. It is not a given that the state would approve the drawdown of funds for the demolition option. Between that and the code issues, the County Board of Supervisors might have given their unanimous support to an option that isn’t really an option at all.

Thursday, May 20

What the Electeds Neglected and the Public Pointed Out in the Former Geneva High School Debate

The Ontario County Board of Supervisors unanimously set the course for “Option 4” at their May 13th meeting, declaring its intent to raze the 1926 Geneva High School building in favor of a new one story structure that Projects Committee Chairman Dick Calabrese (R-Gorham) assured the public would last “50 years.” In doing so, the Ontario County Board of Supervisors put aside a number of compelling arguments put forward by members of the public which had supported fiscal restraint, due diligence, and educational vision-- and which relied mostly on the County’s own data and planning documents— in favor of the preordained outcome.

In other words, the ‘public input’ sessions conducted by the County served exactly the purpose Geneva City Supervisors stated, “to help the public understand what is being proposed” not to actually allow for the public to have input on what the options might be. So the ‘output’ of the ‘input’ remained the same as it had always been: a County commitment to spend $12 million on a new building to house eight (8) classrooms that might not even outlast the students who will sit in them. At $1.5 million per classroom, we can’t tell our readers exactly what to expect, but we suspect that English 101 won’t ever be the same.

And then, at long last—and, unfortunately, too late to do much good-- the Finger Lakes Times decided to take up the role of public information engine and government fact-checker, to start reporting some of the real facts behind how the County made its decision, facts which, by the way, challenge the local paper’s own, previously stated editorial stance on the project. (Remember, the Times came out early saying that the project was akin to buying a shiny new car).

On Tuesday, the Finger Lakes Times ran an above-the-fold story about the problems the County likely will encounter when they attempt to draw down the State’s pledged $6 million contribution to the project. As members of the public doing their own due diligence, had warned, there is a prohibition on using State (or Federal) funds for the demolition of “historically or architecturally significant structures.” The existing 1926 structure is significant on both counts, which means the County will be required to undergo what is known as a “Section 14.09 review.” The County will be required to prove not only that demolition is necessary, but also, that steps will be taken to mitigate the impact of demolition.

It is hard to see how the County will meet either one of those thresholds without expending additional time and money though the Supervisors claimed that there was no truth to these ‘rumors.’

See for yourself. On the last page (page 13) of the County’s “responses to questions” posed by Geneva City Council on behalf of the community, the first question pertaining to due diligence is asked and answered:

“Have any architects ever been charged with developing a $12 million adaptive reuse program?” In other words, did the County ever actually verify whether or not the existing building could be renovated using the available funding? The County takes a paragraph to tell us, essentially, ‘No, they did not.’ They talk about wanting to take the building off the hands of the Geneva City School District. They talk about multiple cost estimates for remodeling the site, and the school district’s inability to find any other “legal use” for the property. But even the County has to admit that they never specifically asked the architects to see what they could do to that building for $12 million. This will likely not fly for the State, who demands a higher threshold of proof that all alternatives are exhausted.

Whether analyzing the Community College’s space needs, the County’s ability to draw down State funds, or the viable reuse strategies for the space in question, the public has exercised the due diligence and fact-based critical thinking that would have served the County well. Too bad the County followed the lead of the FLCC administration in choosing pomp over circumstance, and the Finger lakes Times didn’t catch it earlier.

Monday, May 10

Discussion about FLCC Geneva Center Continues

As you know, the debate about the Pulteney Street campus center for Finger Lakes Community College continues. As we work on our next installment, be sure to follow the discussions that continue after the posts. We welcome any and all comments, so long as the author signs his/her name to them!

Read more here.

Thursday, April 15

Keep Community in Finger Lakes Community College

No Strings Geneva has long championed “a more robust Finger Lakes Community College extension campus in the City of Geneva.” As our post two years ago asserts, the educational opportunities and workforce development that educational facilities provide ought to make them a top local priority.

And that’s why it seems so odd to us that the current discussion of the fate of FLCC’s extension center building project rests not on an insistence on providing the greatest programming possible, but, instead, on the FLCC administration’s desire for a facility with a certain ‘feel.’ In other words, we can’t figure out why form should matter more than function.

Educational institutions in general are tax-exempt for a variety of reasons: They contribute to the overall well-being of a community; They strive to be accessible and keeping costs down helps develop broader constituencies; And, while they must be fiscally responsible, profit is not in their mission. In addition, while not a justification for tax exemption, education serves as an engine of economic development, preparing people for the local workforce, creating jobs on the campus, and making positive contributions to the host city.

In the case of community colleges, their host-community relationship is especially vital. Community colleges in our state are governed by the State University of New York, and have the following mission:
“The SUNY Community Colleges ensure open access to high quality postsecondary education and contribute significantly to the development of an educated citizenry and skilled workforce. They offer comprehensive learning opportunities ranging from transfer and career degrees to programs customized to serve specific individual, community, business and economic development needs. All share a dedication to instruction and services that nurtures the academic and personal achievement of individuals with diverse backgrounds and aspirations.”

The specific mission of FLCC is:
“Finger Lakes Community College is a supportive, learning-centered environment that empowers our students, provides enriching life experiences, and enhances the quality of life throughout our community.”

According to a 2008 Extension Center Growth Assessment plan, conducted by the FLCC administration, the existing Geneva extension has outpaced all other locations in new enrollment. 50% of those students are currently in the local workforce, only 26% are coming directly from high school. This is almost directly inverse to enrollment at the main (Hopewell) campus, where 48% of students are directly out of high school, and only 29% are coming into the community college system from work.

In addition, 52% of the students at the Geneva center are over age 30, compared to only 22% students over 30 at the main campus. While 37% of students at the Geneva center have one or more children, only 14% of students at the main campus are parents. And, one last important statistic, 85% of students at the main campus take the majority of their classes during the day (8am-5pm). At Geneva, 50% of the courses taken are at night (5-10pm).

So, we learn from this that the success of the Geneva campus-- its ability to draw in an increasing amount of tuition revenue for the system-- is based on its robust offering of night classes for non-traditional students who are advancing their existing careers or looking to change careers. In addition, this report concludes that a vibrant Geneva campus will continue to draw a substantial number of students from Seneca County, who bring with them an additional tuition differential, making their enrollment even more critical to the diversification of the FLCC revenue stream.

On page 7 of the report, it is suggested that “new program offerings at the Geneva Campus Center” should “include second-year courses for Criminal Justice and first-year courses for the proposed A.A.S. Degree in Paramedicine and expansion of courses in the A.A. Degree in Teacher Education. Additionally, courses will be offered in the Ornamental Horticulture area.” This is based not just on what will generate the most revenue for the college, but also what the community needs.

The report states (again, on page 7):
“demand for emergency medical services will naturally parallel the aging of the general population, and demand for paramedicine training is magnified by relatively high turnover rates in these jobs…Evening and weekend enrollments are common for these audiences.”

“….the new Teacher Education transfer program responds to the growing public school teacher shortage…representing a combination of prospective day and evening students.”

“….proximity to the Cornell Agricultural Experiment Station and the interest expressed by current individuals from the Geneva area suggests that the [Ornamental Horticulture] program could be very successful [and] could be tailored to meet specific demands of the area with classes such as organic land care, viticulture, and others.”

Continuing (on page 8):
“…the target audience…is a combination of traditional age students and older adults already engaged in the helping professions seeking a career change. The scheduling of these offerings will probably favor evening time slots.”

“Prospective areas to explore for these additional programs include tourism-related offerings, customer service management, viticulture, and hotel/resort management. These prospects share the common thread of relationship to various aspects of the grape growing and wine making businesses, particularly including hospitality, food service, and other retail services to visitors attracted to the area by the wine industry. Continued growth of other programs at Geneva is also expected to generate demand for additional sections of courses previously offered.”

All in all, this college planning document, completed by the administration shortly before President Barb Risser took the helm as the College President, shows a dedicated effort to identify community needs and employment trends, and tailor community college course offerings to meet those needs and provide a vibrant extension center for residents of Ontario, Seneca, and Yates Counties.

A criminal justice program to help with recruitment and retention of well-qualified police officers, a paramedicine program to make sure we have the emergency responders we need for an aging population, a teacher education program to help local students get ready to return to their schools as instructors to make a positive impact, courses to help adults make career changes, programs to support the workforce needs of the thriving tourism industry. All of it sounds like a recipe for success for the Community College and the Community itself.

So, why is the Ontario County Board of Supervisors so eager to adopt Dr. Risser’s plan which appears to pre-empt future growth in enrollment at the Geneva Center? When asked this very question, directly and at a public meeting, Supervisor (and Projects Committee Chair) Richard Calabrese (Gorham) stated that the architects designed the new building far back on the lot “to allow for a new wing for expansion in a couple of years.”

This raises an interesting question: If the Board of Supervisors acknowledges that their $12 million “Option #4” doesn’t give enough room to grow and will require an addition within five years, why can’t the community have the benefit of the full project cost. If this is stage 1, why not tell us how much is budgeted for stage 2? Maybe the cost of both is less than the cost of “option 1” that makes the existing building fit for the current, and anticipated needs? Spending $12 million on a campus center that barely meets existing program needs doesn’t seem like the “growth position.”

At the same meeting, Dr. Risser and county planner Tom Harvey were quick to point out that the new building will allow for a sufficient number of “FTE” hours to accommodate some growth. But they should recognize that this number is misleading (and if they don’t realize it, well, maybe that’s even worse!). The FTE (full time equivalent) hours are based on projections of enrollment in classes offered from 8am-5pm 5 days per week and from 5pm-10pm four days per week. But FLCC’s own data shows that extension center students can’t be evenly distributed in that way. Working folks aren’t taking daytime courses, and main campus students aren’t traveling to Geneva to get smaller classes. In other words, students are not just as likely to take English 101 at 10:10am as at 6:30pm, the student demand is just different, it’s specific to the area. So Dr. Risser can’t take a ‘main campus’ mentality and apply it to an extension center and call it all even.

At the March 31st, and again at the April 7th City Council meetings, Councilor Augustine tried to raise these points. In reply, she was asked by President Risser for a copy of the planning document. We would hope, since Augustine received her copy from the President’s office, that Dr. Risser will familiarize herself with it before continuing to endorse a building project that works directly against its well-reasoned and data-driven recommendations. The future of FLCC in Geneva clearly depends on it.

We hope that the County Board of Supervisors can be reminded that the mission of a Community College is not to build buildings that look sleek and modern, and it’s not to draw down millions of taxpayer dollars to create large glass-enclosed atriums and fancy lounges.
The mission is to educate, to prepare, to equip local residents to be good citizens, productive workers, better people. The Board of Supervisors has the ability to use what we have, a 1926 building that is, by all architectural assessments done thus far structurally sound and built better than most recently constructed projects in the city limits, to achieve that very end. We know that some people want something that ‘looks prettier,’ that ‘feels newer,’ that they can point to and say “I built that!”

But, in the name of fiscal responsibility, community development, and the educational and economic needs of the residents they represent, that $12 million dollars should go into renovating the existing building that has a whole lot of learning potential left.

Monday, March 8

FLCC Projects Committee Wants Questions on Proposed Geneva Extension Center:
We Want Answers

Thursday, February 25, the Finger Lakes Community College Projects Committee, which is chaired by County Supervisor Richard Calabrese (R-Gorham) and includes Geneva City Supervisor Rocky LaRocca, and additional Supervisors and members of the FLCC staff and Board of Trustees, met to discuss public presentations regarding the proposed Geneva Extension Center.

To kick off the meeting, JMZ Architects and Planners provided a viewing of their PowerPoint presentation which explores various options for a new extension center. The County currently leases classroom space in the building which formerly housed the Geneva Middle School, at the corner of Milton and Pulteney Streets in the City of Geneva. Purchasing and renovating that building was one of three options considered initially for the new center.

At Thursday's meeting, JMZ stated unequivocally that the main structure at that site-- the 1926 structure originally built to house Geneva High-- is structurally sound. The 1965 natatorium and gymnasium additions have not fared as well. They, apparently, were built without expansion joints and as a result of a lack of maintenance, have deteriorated. Under every option proposed, that wing (facing Pulteney and William Streets) is recommended for demolition.

Reuse of the main structure was the least costly of the three initial options presented. The estimated cost of renovation-- $18 million-- did exceed the $12 million budget, but would make available 90,000 square feet of renovated space. FLCC currently utilizes 80,000 square feet within the building, but a revised space assessment had come in at 58,000 square feet. Full renovation would leave 32,000 square feet open for use by potential co-tenants. But the Projects Committee Chairman ruled that Thursday's meeting was not the time or place to examine issues of co-tenancy, layout and contracting options and the minutia of each plan. Instead, he opened the floor to questions from non-committee members which were recorded by the clerk and made part of the official record. Chairman Calabrese assured everyone present that written responses would be provided for every question submitted on the record.

Here are the comments and questions put to the Committee on Thursday:

1) The Geneva City Councilors who had penned a defense of the County's process the day before in the local paper, Ron Alcock and Paul D'Amico, were in attendance, as was Councilor Augustine. D'Amico did not ask questions, but simply repeated his support for demolishing the main building at Milton and Pulteney and building new. Alcock noted the need for the community to be notified of, and perhaps involved in, the design process for any new building, to foster clear communication on issues such as set backs from the street and the overall orientation of the building within the neighborhood.

2) City resident and member of the FLCC Foundation Board, George Michaels, asked for more detailed analysis of the space needs. He pointed out that the $11.9 million plan that includes demolition of the building and construction of a new space would result in far less than the 58,000 square feet that FLCC said it needs. He received an immediate response from the architect, who stated that the orientation of the new building on the site allows for further additions and expansion in the out years. Michaels responded that he would prefer to see the money spent to accommodate current needs stemming from recent growth and anticipated needs from projected future growth. He noted a 28% increase in student enrollment at the Geneva center within the past year. He asked again for a detailed analysis of those projections as they related to space needs and square footage costs under each option.

3) Pulteney Street resident Diana Davis asked about the practices for estimating particular line item costs, and in particular, the nearly $900,000 projected to improve the parking lot at the corner of Pulteney and William Street.

4) Augustine submitted six questions/requests for information for the record, three directed at the architects and three at the committee as a whole.

From the architects, she asked for the following:
1. A timeline for the project, if approved, including phasing of the construction and demolition elements. An assurance that the full range of classes would continue to be available at the extension center site while the project proceeds.
2. A clarification on the cost estimates per square foot for the $18 million project that puts FLCC classroom space on all three floors.
3. The estimated process timeline for SHPO sign off for the draw down of state funds for a project option that includes demolition.

From the Committee as a whole, she asked for the following:
1. A detailed description of the process of considering and rejecting each of various co-tenancy options for the renovated main building. This a follow up to an assurance made by President Risser at a 2008 City Council meeting, that the committee along with the Community Advisory Committee, would look at co-tenancy options.

2. (Similar to Mr. Michaels' request), the five-year growth projections (both in programming and enrollment) for the Geneva Extension and the associated space needs.
3. Results of focus studies and/or other research that indicate that a flat-roof, contemporary building design is needed to achieve the "message of hope" that President Risser says that the building must convey to students. This is in contrast to other college improvement projects that opt for a more traditional collegiate design that might be more in line with the existing neighborhood.

We assume the FLCC Projects committee is already hard at work developing responses to the questions posed and will conduct public meetings (TBD) to receive input on the plans before a decision is made, beginning with a presentation to the Geneva City Council (TBD). While Chairman Calabrese said that he didn't want to give any "false hope" that the committee would step back and reconsider demolition, we do remain confident that an honest and open public process will bring forward the public intelligence that will ensure the best decision for the long term needs of the County, the college, and the Geneva community.

Thursday, February 18

BS (as in Bait and Switch) Part II:
Wonderful Bait for a Sinister Switch

On March 29, 2009, NY State Senator Mike Nozzolio’s website read “Senator Nozzolio Delivers!” What was it that he was delivering? Over $26 million in State dollars for projects bundled as the “21st Century Geneva Plan”-- and what turned out to be lots of bait for local practitioners of bait and switch.

$5 million of the bundle was dedicated to a “signature building for the Finger Lakes region that will serve as a destination for tourists.” That building, it was eventually determined by City Council, would be the Finger Lakes Boating Museum, currently operating out of meager facilities in Penn Yan.

$6 million was earmarked to match $6 in funding the Ontario County board of supervisors had already set aside for the “Finger Lakes Community College Campus in Geneva.” The Geneva FLCC campus had been housed for many years at the “Civic Center” and, in 2006, was moved to the former Geneva Middle School building at the corner of Pulteney and Milton Streets, leased to Ontario County by the Geneva City School District.

At first, taxpayers seemed generally pleased with the use of their state dollars in these ways. State money, it appeared, was being used to support placement of a regional tourist attraction, the Boating Museum, on the lakefront. And the new structure would be an architecturally significant building replacing the drab City building which currently houses the Chamber of Commerce.

Recall how the current building, which formerly housed the local Boy Scouts Council, was put on that site without proper footings. Over time, revenue from the lease with the Chamber for the use of interior fell short of expenses for the upkeep of the exterior. The building, of no historical significance, has been generally accepted as an eyesore on the lakefront and might be better used as a source of recycled building materials.

In September 2009, the City Council agreed with the Finger Lakes Boating Museum (FLBM) to design and build a more appropriate facility to house the Chamber and to serve as a regional tourist destination. However, as that project appears to move forward, the money Nozzolio promised seems to move back to Albany.

Nozzolio had come up with the $5 million figure by securing $4 million from the NYS Dormitory Authority and keeping his fingers crossed for another $1 million from a specific source he has yet to identify. The Senator’s office still has not been able to tell reporters from the local paper where the other $1 million resides.

In addition, it seems, Nozzolio’s priority has shifted from a regional destination to a local office complex. Rather than clearly backing the boating museum concept, the $4 million seems now to be flagged for new-and-improved offices to be occupied by the Geneva Area Chamber of Commerce (GACC).
If that is the case, Geneva City taxpayers would lose out doubly. While both the GACC and FLBM are tax-exempt entities, the FLBM is a regional destination, a place that people living here or visiting would come to experience. So, not only would the upgraded deluxe Chamber of Commerce not house activities that local residents could participate in, it would also eliminate another activity that would presumably draw tourists Geneva to boost the economy.

It is also worth noting that the notorious Bergmann report of 2009 on downtown-lakefront connectivity emphasizes the need to pursue water-related uses on the lakefront as a maximization of the highly coveted land that currently belongs to all of Geneva’s citizens. A Chamber of Commerce executive suite hardly seems water-based or even water-related. A boating museum and the proposed enhanced dockage fits the vision perfectly.

In the case of the FLCC extension center, use of the former Geneva Middle School building has accomplished many community goals. First, it stabilized a building that has significant community value and is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic places along with its neighboring church and church school.

Second, it keeps FLCC students near the city center, utilizing its optimal location both to benefit students looking for a convenient location and downtown businesses happy to have more patrons in the vicinity. Last, it assisted the Geneva City School District in putting to good use a building that was no longer serving the district but still in need of maintenance.

But wait. A memo from FLCC president, Barb Risser, states her preference to tear down the building and looking forward “to the day a couple of years from now when we will open a… modern campus center in Geneva." So those two $6 million amounts, $12million total, which is nothing more than a combination of county tax and state tax dollars, will be used to pay Casella to take tons of building debris and then to build a smaller more contemporary looking building in its place.

Bait and switch takes many forms. In this instance, what’s used as the ‘bait’ are the community’s own values and ideas. Then, once the tax dollars are appropriated, under the guise of the public good in the public interest, the ‘switch’ comes in and we end up with projects that not only don’t achieve the intended outcome, but actually work against it.

Foregoing a boating museum for a Chamber office takes up valuable lakefront space for an unnecessary purpose. Foregoing a building renovation for contemporary new construction destroys a valuable piece of the community fabric and dumps a costly, unsightly single-purpose structure in its place. In both cases, what is unique about Geneva is used as leverage to get money for projects that ultimately destroy that very character.

Sunday, January 31

Is the Red and Black In the Red or in the Black?
City Schools Seek $12.5 million in New Borrowing

A year ago, we ran a series of posts concerning the Geneva City School District's proposal to shift from two K-5 neighborhood schools to one primary (PreK-2) and one intermediate (3-5) school. The plan was brought to our attention by faculty and staff who were concerned that the effort was misguided in several ways. We don’t deal in leaks and rumors, so we didn’t post until we’d checked out the facts. And when we did, we were compelled to speak out about what we’d found, especially when the Finger Lakes Times was giving the plan a pass.

First, we shared worries that the plan was educationally unsound, and that it was likely to lead to greater disassociation between students, parents, and their school. Second, it was foreseen that there were serious logistical difficulties with such a move: scheduling, bussing, and adequate classroom space would be a problem.

Underlying those concerns, and creating a situation of distrust within which those issues could not easily be discussed or addressed, was the perception that the District administration, in conjunction with favored insider faculty members, was moving full steam ahead in insulated, secretive, non-public meetings.

Sure enough, the Finger Lakes Times towed the "company line" that no decisions had been made and there were no foregone conclusions. But they didn't press, and they didn't ask the hard follow up questions that would have revealed the facts behind the well-controlled sound bites. Despite the newspaper's headline "Nothing Decided" (2/9/09), the final public hearing on the proposal was held March 25th, and the decision passed with the support of five of the seven school board members on April 6th.

In less than two months, the District maintained (according to the resolution that you can read here) "the reconfiguration of the elementary schools will maintain and/or enhance the quality of educational programming for students and will also maintain fiscal discipline during this time of economic uncertainty."

You might wonder, as we do: Has the reconfiguration of the elementary schools enhanced, or at least maintained, the quality of educational programming for students? Did the move maintain "fiscal discipline" during a time of economic uncertainty? While we abhor the concept, we wonder if at least the ends justified the means? Did the perceived Machiavellian maneuvers of the District administration at least pan out?

If so, you wouldn’t think this move would require, in its first year, the pursuit of a $12.5million building project to remedy a lack of classroom space that, apparently, went unnoticed or unplanned for during the very process that the District said was guided by a thorough, responsible, and detail-oriented advisory committee. We wish it was otherwise, but alas, the district is putting just such a request up for a public referendum on March 9, 2010 (one year and one month, to the day, after solemn reassurance to District families and taxpayers public that this wasn’t a ‘done deal’).

Here’s the referendum item:

SPECIAL REFERENDUM
SPECIAL REFERENDUM OF THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF
GENEVA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a special referendum of the qualified voters of the City School District of the City of Geneva, New York, shall be held at Geneva High School, 101 Carter Road, Geneva, New York on Tuesday, March 9, 2010, between the hours of 12:00 o’clock to 9:00 P.M., for the purpose of voting on the following proposition:

PROPOSITION

SHALL THE BOND RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF GENEVA, NEW YORK, DATED JANUARY 19, 2010, AUTHORIZING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS CONSISTING OF ADDITION TO, CONSTRUCTION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF, SCHOOL BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES, VARIOUS SITE IMPROVEMENTS, AND THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN ORIGINAL FURNISHINGS, EQUIPMENT, AND APPARATUS AND OTHER INCIDENTAL IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR SUCH CONSTRUCTION AND SCHOOL USE, AT AN ESTIMATED MAXIMUM AGGREGATE COST OF $12,500,000; AND PROVIDING THAT SUCH COSTS SHALL BE RAISED BY THE LEVY OF A TAX TO BE COLLECTED IN ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS WITH SUCH TAX TO BE OFFSET BY STATE AID AVAILABLE THEREFOR, AND IN ANTICIPATION OF SUCH TAX, DEBT OBLIGATIONS OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AS MAY BE NECESSARY, NOT TO EXCEED SUCH ESTIMATED MAXIMUM AGGREGATE COST, SHALL BE ISSUED, AND, IF THE PROPOSITION FOR THE APPROVAL OF SUCH BOND RESOLUTION SHALL HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY AT LEAST A SIXTY PERCENT VOTE, SUCH OBLIGATIONS MAY BE ISSUED IN EXCESS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEBT LIMIT OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT PURSUANT TO APPLICABLE LAW, ALL BE APPROVED?”


For the complete referendum, click here.

It's probably wise for the Board of Education to separate the vote for $12.5million of new debt from the May vote for the election of new Board members. Is it to cover their lack of foresight—or, the old bait and switch? Whether it was poor planning or misleading the public, or something else, perhaps board members feared that residents who care about accountability and fiscal responsibility would not re-elect board members who supported this ill-fated reconfiguration.

In upcoming posts we will delve into this issue in more detail, fully presenting this case study of bait and switch. But we are again reminded that one of the values in public, inclusive decision-making processes (which the reconfiguration debacle certainly was not) is the ability of governing board to be clued in to 'public intelligence' on critical issues. We see what happens when those in power think they know better than those they are elected to represent. Unfortunately, it's the represented that end up footing the bill for their representatives’ mistakes.

Sunday, January 24

Bait and Switch Anyone?
"The Bloggers" Preview Posts and a Citizenship Academy to Come in 2010

Our recent appearance on Ted Baker's WGVA morning radio show featured a discussion of our post on Tiger Woods, Obama, and spin. We also previewed the themes we're looking to cover as NoStringsGeneva enters its fourth year, this coming March.

True to our original mission, we remain focused on public decision-making and accountability. We also remain committed to providing a fact-based point of view, resisting the urge of other media sources to rely on sound bites from local leaders without verifying the accuracy of those statements. We believe that our readers have come to rely on us for the "whole story" surrounding critical local issues, and we plan to keep delivering on that. As we mentioned to Ted, we will be starting with a look back at critical issues that have dominated community discourse in the past year.

Those include the Geneva City School District elementary school realignment plan (Were the projections accurate?), the City's Neighborhood Initiative (Is it catching on and how much is it costing?), City subcommittee work (What are those groups up to?), leachate (It keeps coming in, but what is the ‘it’?), and the ever looming national, state, and local budget crises (Who’s going to be hit the hardest by a failure of forward-thinking?).

Baker also engaged us in discussion of “bait and switch,” a political term Capraro first encountered when he entered public life in a big way in the early 1990s. He has been intrigued with it ever since, because it is so common in public affairs.

The term refers to presenting one set of reasons, rationalizations, premises, arguments—whatever will get elected officials, boards, or the public to agree on a certain action—and then, once taking that action is passed, changing the action, or the reason.

Ted’s example was selling the U.S. invasion of Iraq with fears of weapons of mass destruction, and then, once it happens, saying the invasion was about regime change and state building all along. And locally, we can think of several examples, like promising job creation to receive Empire Zone benefits, but never actually producing any new jobs, or pitching a new idea as a cost-saver but then watching costs soar after it’s implemented.

According to WiseGeek, “bait and switch” is an old marketing ploy:

“The bait and switch begins with the bait, an advertisement for a product at what seems like an extremely low price. Sometimes these products, such as a mattress, are of very low quality. Other times, the price may apply to one specific style of, or model of an item. In general, the bait is stocked in very low numbers. In some cases, only one or two of items are available at the low price.
Once the customer has walked into the retail establishment, the bait and switch moves to the switch. The salesperson will inform the customer that the store has sold out of the advertised item and offer a similar item at a higher price. Alternately the salesperson may push hard to be certain the customer understands that the lower-priced product is of inferior quality, and try to sell a better quality product at a higher price. Bait and switch may also be used to bring in customers with bait, low prices, and also raise prices of unrelated items that customers might also pick up at the time.”

Any sportsperson will tell you that deception is inherent in a bait scenario. If there were no barbed hook inside the worm, you’d just be feeding the fish one worm at a time on a string. We told Ted we’d be doing more posts on bait and switch, perhaps some case studies, of which there is never a shortage.

Our hope is that our readers will come to recognize the bait, uncover the hook, and not get caught up in the deception! This is the essence of accountability, getting to the core reasons, the true reasons, for public decision-making and making sure those, and only those, guide the public policy debate.

Of course, we want to cover the issues that matter the most to you. While we think the topics above are a good start, we welcome your suggestions!

In 2010 we also hope to begin a NoStringsGeneva “Citizens Academy” that will give anyone who's interested the opportunity to learn about and participate in local government decision-making, from filing FOIL requests to effectively debating the policy that arises from those assembled sets of facts. All in all, it looks to be an exciting year and we look forward to having you join us on the journey!

Wednesday, January 13

Are Things Going "The Blog Way?"

At the end of our most recent WGVA radio appearance, host Ted Baker asked us to reflect on the blog’s influence on local politics over the years. Capraro was quick to point out that it ought to be up to our readers to determine how effective we’ve been in advocating for open and accountable government, and community based civic engagement. But with the third anniversary of www.NoStringsGeneva.com on the horizon, it’s worth a look back: Have we made a difference?

After we were up and running about six months, on August 1, 2007, we outlined the principles our blog was founded on: accountability, open government, fiscally conservative taxing and spending policies, shared services and inter-municipal cooperation, sensible programs for improving the quality of life of city residents.

Of course, underlying each of those, and critical to the success of all, is our focus on process. We believe that the first and foremost goal of any democratic government is a democratic government. We rejected the notion that City Council should ride roughshod over the how in favor of the what.

Councilors and the citizenry should speak up and out when things are not progressing in accordance with democratic principles, including transparency. “Going along to get along” might spare the public a few squabbles, but it is better for government in the long run to insist on accountability. We, therefore, encouraged public participation, public access to documents, a meaningful seat at the table for the public interest, and a vigilant local press that, in keeping with democratic theory, ought to be more watchdog than cheerleader for local government.

In our view, good information + good dialogue = good government.

At its outset, the blog was attacked by some Councilors and some members of the previous administration-- largely for letting the sun shine in on local government, i.e., sharing information that had previously been regarded as ‘privileged,’ even though it never was. A short lived panic and worry emerged among those who feared everyone would eventually go the blog way, which meant asking lots of questions, FOILing documents, challenging the authority, speaking truth to power, and confronting those who appeared not to be acting responsibly in the public interest.

Ideas we raised here slowly made their way into the community and even into the hearts and minds of many of our detractors. Some of the ideas we discussed are actually making their way into public policy. Of course, we don’t claim ownership of those ideas, nor do we believe that good policy begins and ends with the blog. Instead, we see our role as another avenue of participation for the average citizen. Anyone who wants a say can have it here, so long as they’re willing to stand by it (by signing their name) and have a good faith discussion about the merits or drawbacks of particular ideas.

At NoStringsGeneva, we’re guided by two concerns: unchecked government power and blind populism. Who keeps us in check? We strive to be a fact-based point of view. We take a stance on the issues, but we do our best to support our position with sourced facts and information, readily accessible to our readers. We also post responsible, signed responses to our posts, with our additional comments, Whether our ideas are seen as good or bad is, for us, secondary to our larger purpose of attempting to model responsible civic engagement, to get the facts, to let the facts do the talking and to make sure that those facts ground any and all policy-making. In that vein, we think we’ll take some credit for at least being mildly successful—for the time being. Check out the rest of our interview with Ted Baker in the radio archive.

Saturday, January 2

Tiger Woods:
A Case Study of Public/Private in an Age of Spin


Golfer Tiger Woods— AP Athlete of the Decade and the wealthiest athlete in the world— is taking “an indefinite break from professional golf” in response to a flood of reports on his now admitted “infidelity.” (you can find the full story here)

Since professional athletes and politicians have a great deal in common—they live in the public eye and are celebrities of sorts—we thought aspects of the Woods affair might be of interest to our NoStringsGeneva readers.

Recalling our previous posts on trusting public officials, the resignation of Eliot Spitzer, and the plausible deniability of John Edwards, and others, we thought we might look at the public/private dichotomy in the Woods affair and the ways celebrity politicians and athletes manage their image, and the implications for our own civic engagement.

Athletes and politicians ultimately depend on the public, or various publics—voters, fans, etc.—for the positions they hold, so their image is important. Individually, fans and voters are relatively insignificant; but, in their collective actions (watching/supporting events and casting ballots) they confer wealth and power on athletes and candidates.

Most of these ‘transactions’ take place in the “public” realm: Voters respond to constructions of candidates built from messages about image, issues, and biography; Sports fans react mostly to athletic performances. What goes on in the “private” lives of athletes and politicians, we say, doesn’t matter much, unless they have done something terribly wrong, or flat out illegal.

But it’s not quite that simple. Politicians and athletes actively manage the disclosure of certain aspects of their private lives—such as information about their families and their likes and dislikes. They invite voters and fans into their private lives, mainly, we believe, to suggest something good about their character. “Family man” and “good son” or “hard working” and “sober” fill out the picture of a candidate or athlete worthy of our support and our trust.

Such disclosures are selective, so we can never be sure we are getting the whole story. Take President Barack Obama, who both smokes cigarettes and plays pickup basketball. He lets cameras into the gym, especially if he’s shooting hoops with servicemen, but he is shutter shy when he lights up.

ABC News
observes, “Clearly mindful of the image issues smoking may cause, Obama has been careful to keep images of him with what health advocates call ‘cancer sticks’ out of the newspapers. Unlike Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton, members of the media have been unable to find photographic images of Obama smoking even a cigar or pipe.”

However, as The Huffington Post reported this Fall, “White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs enlivened his daily press conference by showing reporters a blown up photo of President Obama blocking a shot by his bodyman Reggie Love during a basketball game.”

Now consider Tiger Woods. He made his reputation and created his image mostly with his amazing performances as a golfer. When it comes to any high performing athlete, and even though we are frequently disappointed, a certain amount of good character is assumed. Inherent in our admiration of athletes is an unstated assumption that underlying their performance is good character at work: hard work, discipline, sacrifice, self-control, etc.

For all his notoriety, Woods was said to be a private person. But, as private as he was, he selectively disclosed aspects of his private life. As he approached his late 20’s, his private narrative— the story of his life off the course—evolved from the good son of Earl Woods to a family man in his own right.

Earlier this year he released the family photo, at left, following the birth of his son.

The combination of ranking number one among the world’s golfers and stepping into the role of family man (husband, father, and good provider) created a powerful image of high performance and responsibility. Corporate sponsors loved the combination. The Tiger Woods brand was premised on a guy you could trust.

There was a lot of truth in that image of Woods. Athletes have something few politicians can claim, a public performance of actual, objective accomplishment. You could, in fact, count on Woods to win. No spin, he has won 93 professional tournaments, including 14 majors, since joining the tour in 1996.

And he is married to Elin Nordegren—former swimsuit model and nanny, and they do have two children. But, in light of his confessed “infidelity,” and a myriad of allegations adding up to promiscuous sex, the image was ultimately false.

With most politicians, we have less to go on. Barack Obama rose quickly from relative obscurity to prominence based largely on image—an image of intelligence and hope and charisma. That’s one of the reasons we’re always trying to get at the bedrock of a politician’s character and, in turn, why they are always managing their image. We want to know who we are putting in office: is this someone you can trust?

In all fairness, we all edit our self-disclosures, with a particular audience in mind. Erving Goffman’s classic sociological study, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959), captures that sense of theater in our lives. What’s more, most would agree restraint in what we reveal about ourselves is the mark of a mature, sane, and civil person.

Our notion of a right to privacy, in its everyday social and legal dimensions, suggests that we want to be protected from unconsensual intrusions and that we ought to be in charge of what is revealed about us. It is up to us to decide what we wish to reveal, and to whom. The State of California, home to Hollywood and other dream factories, just enacted new legislation to further protect celebrities from paparazzi profiting from invasive photos.

In short, because we are after character, there is an approach/avoidance dance between the public and private lives of politicians and star athletes. That’s why they all manage their image in an age of spin—so that we will move our votes, our money, our very trust over to them. If we are lucky, image and reality match up, but they didn’t with Woods, Madoff, W. Bush in Iraq, Spitzer, and so on.

But what about the co-conspirators? Since Woods hit the tour, prize money has increased fourfold, so the entire PGA tour membership and their various dependents benefitted from Woods’s accomplishments and star power. When he missed most of the 2008 season with knee surgery, the audience for golf went down 50%.

Certainly, a great many folks must have known about Woods’s antics, but no one has spoken out. There’s too much at stake. Only a conspiracy of the tabloid press and several apparently jealous or fame-seeking lovers could bring them to light.

The same is true in politics: powerful people develop an extensive network of dependents who then help to submerge any scandalous behavior. In the case of Eliot Spitzer, how could the governor of the State of New York sneak off with prostitutes on a regular basis without a fair number of people knowing about it? So, too, with John Edwards, and with Bernie Madoff, dozens of folks must have been aware of his ponzi scheme but were in some way benefitting from it and therefore remained silent.

New York Times columnist Frank Rich-- reflecting on America’s “flight from truth” in the past decade, says we allowed ourselves, almost willfully, to be “spun silly” and “bamboozled” and “conned” by “shams” and “flimflams” and “ruses” and “fraudulent images,” i.e., by “men who played us for suckers.” He then drew direct comparisons between Obama and Woods:
“Though the American left and right don’t agree on much, they are both now coalescing around the suspicion that Obama’s brilliant presidential campaign was as hollow as Tiger’s public image.”

For Woods, does it really matter to us, even his sponsors, that he cheated on his wife so deliberately, so repeatedly, recklessly, and hurtfully? People say his next victory, perhaps as early as the 2010 Masters, will put all this behind him, and fans will forgive him. What matters is his awesome achievement on the course.

The problem with spin in the real world is that reality ultimately catches up. Lives are lost fruitlessly in Iraq. Fortunes are lost on Wall Street. And so, too, the public purpose can be lost, and the people lose.