To Post or Not to Post? That is the Question A Signed Post About Anonymous Comments

Three months ago, our “No Strings Attached” blog did not exist. Now, well over 1,000 readers are checking us out on a regular basis. We’ve all embarked on a long, strange trip through this new technology. One of the editorial issues we’ve been mulling over is how to handle anonymous responses to our postings.

On the one hand, some believe a signature is important. It connects words-- and deeds-- to persons. A signature gives accountability because it says “I said this and I will stand by it.” In other words, it shows a person’s intent to approach the discussion openly and honestly. When we sign our names, we hope to be modeling effective discussion based on transparency, civility, responsibility, and integrity.

In government, real reform depends on bringing accountability, transparency, and integrity back into decision-making. That requires each person taking a public position to be prepared to give the reasons for it, publicly! That would all suggest that our reader responses should have an identified source.

On the other hand, others say a signature can actually stifle discussion because some people are afraid. They are afraid for a lot of the same reasons a signature makes them accountable. Accountability can bring consequences. If things go well, the consequences may be positive, but if they are not going well, the consequences might be disappointment or even retaliation. And, anyway, why should it matter who said it? If it’s a truly good idea, if it is well argued and supported with evidence, and delivered in an non-personal way, why should it matter?

Actually, one of the driving forces behind our blog in the first place was the resistance-- should we say hostility-- to transparent, honest, reasoned debate we encountered from the ‘powers that be’ in City government. We could wave the facts around all day, only to be criticized for taking the job too seriously, taking up too much time, being ‘paper pushers.’ Public officials have an obligation to share facts and our opinions with the public whose City, tax dollars, and very future are hang in the balance. But not everyone in the community is a public official. Not everyone has taken an oath to stand up and take a beating for disagreeing with the status quo.

Blocking all anonymous comments risks not getting to hear from any of the people who have good ideas and constructive things to say, but don’t want to risk the wrath of friends, family, customers, whoever, for saying them.

In formulating our editorial policy regarding anonymous submissions, we tried to balance responsibility and the likelihood of high quality, thoughtful responses with openness and a spirit of encouraging participation. Here’s what we settled on, at least for the time being:
:
No Strings Attached welcomes responses: comments/questions/suggestions/criticism about any city issue that we have taken up, or that you would like to see addressed.

All comments must add something of substance to the discussion. While we appreciate the encouraging comments we receive, we generally will not post them. The same goes for angry, incoherent rants.

We accept no personal attacks. By personal attacks, we mean unsubstantiated negative comments meant simply to embarrass or annoy. Critiques of the public performance of public officials are not personal attacks if they are substantiated by the facts and documents. We will not post general statements that demean or degrade our fellow councilors or city staff. The point of this website is to inform. If you are considering a response, a good rule of thumb would be to ask yourself if your submission is fact-based or merely opinion. We’re interested in the former.

We prefer all responses entered on the blog to be signed (first and last names) in a verifiable way, including legal address. This is the standard used in almost all public discussion (letters to the editor or public petitions before City Council). Exceptions will be made on a case-by-case basis. Should you have information that you would like to share, but have a compelling reason to remain anonymous, you may submit your comment as stated above along with the reason that we should withhold your name.

Not All Property Tax Relief Is Created Equal

On June 11th, NYS Assembly Minority Leader Jim Tedisco wrote to us, asking the Geneva City Council to pass a resolution supporting the NYS Property Taxpayer Protection Act. The supporting resolution he enclosed begins,

“Whereas, the tremendously high property tax burden on New York families and businesses is the number one issue facing our community today, and the sheer cost of living in New York has forced many residents and businesses to leave, thus slowing the economic engine of the state; and

Whereas, young people are finding it difficult to purchase homes, seniors are struggling to maintain their homes, and businesses are facing immense challenges to create and retain jobs; and

Whereas New Yorkers face the highest property taxes in the nation…and the State must act now to thwart the detrimental effects that high property taxes are having on local governments…”

At first glance, we found it compelling. It makes the same argument we have made during the last few budget cycles about the effect of our tax rate on local economic development. It highlights the negative impact on services, home equity, and job growth that we have tried to bring to light. In short, it seems downright sensible.

However, the legislation has a fundamental flaw. It does contain many important, on-the-mark provisions (such as reimbursing schools for mandated testing costs, providing incentives for local governments to work together, restricting unfunded state mandates and targeting Medicaid fraud) but, the focus of the bill is two taxes: County Property Tax and School Tax.

So what’s wrong with that? Well, the fundamental property tax problem in most Upstate cities, including the City of Geneva, stems from the local property taxes. In one of our postings on taxes, we showed that Geneva’s school taxes are not the highest in the county. And the Ontario County property tax is on the decline. What a great thing!

It’s cities and villages that continue to raise taxes as a way of raising revenue for services that they often provide beyond their own borders. For instance, the City of Geneva and the City of Canandaigua provide municipal water and sewer services that are used by both City and Town residents, respectively. If you look at the costs for maintaining those systems, and compare them to the usage rates, the Town users get the same service at a largely discounted rate.


Geneva and Canandaigua are not alone in this predicament. It is the challenge facing almost every city in New York State. You might ask, “Isn’t county and school tax relief better than no relief at all?” Let’s take a look. Right now, County taxes make up a small percentage of your total tax bill, compared to your city and school tax. If the County tax is lowered, you’ll see some savings, but so will all other county residents. That means that your tax bill might be a bit lower, but not by comparison to people living in areas without a local tax. And the more taxes go down in surrounding areas, the more sprawl we will see. With sprawl comes an increased need for services (like water and sewer) and an increased burden on city resources.

So, while we certainly support efforts to eliminate fraud, waste, and other abuses that drive up property taxes unnecessarily, this is only one part of the long term solution. People will continue to leave Upstate if the core cities, like Geneva, don’t see a reinvestment that creates the housing and job climates that people want and need. Tax relief at the county level makes the tax burden in cities even more pronounced, which encourages the suburban sprawl that is causing the problem. This county-focused effort, on closer examination, is too much of a ‘quick fix’ that will make the problem worse in the long run.

Mayor's Comments Heavy on Emotion, Light on Fact

On Friday, the Mayor had a press conference and made some pointed comments about us. Craig Fox, of the Finger Lakes Times, asked us to respond.
Well, most of the things we had to say have already appeared here on the blog. That's the point: We express our opinions openly and stand by those statements.

On Thursday, June 14th we posted about our latest radio appearance. We received a question from someone wanting to know our thoughts on the Democratic Committee's endorsements. We responded, but maybe people haven't gotten the hang of exploring all the comments yet, so here is what we wrote:

For the most part, our blog leaves party politics to the City Republican and Democratic Committees, but, since you ask, we'll say this: In our view, the underlying causes of the current disharmony are the Mayor's lack of leadership, the City Manager's "divide and conquer" approach to relations with Council, and the Council's own impatience with dialogue and lack of interest in exploring issues from a variety of perspectives in full view of the public.

We agree that this is troubling, but if the alternative to this "division" is to roll over and just "go along to get along," then the division must stand regardless of how uncomfortable it may be. Our approach is to continue exploring issues, provide information and a point of view to the public and try and generate solutions to the real problems of local government.

As for endorsements, the City's Democratic and Republican committees have always been an important component of local government. Committee members, whose positions are actually public offices and who are therefore accountable to voters in their parties, are dedicated volunteers who work to frame issues and recruit candidates.

We think it perfectly reasonable for those committees to evaluate the public performance of Council and take that into account when making endorsements. And it's a two-way street. Councilors can disagree with the committees to the point where they are compelled to go their separate ways. In the recent round of endorsements, or lack there of, Mayor Cass and Councilors Greco and Cosentino actively sought the endorsement of the Democratic Committee. They interviewed just like we, and the other candidates, did. They heard the committee express its commitment to open, honest, transparent city government just like we did. They understood the committee's desire for candidates who would do their homework on critical issues and engage in respectful dialogue.

Cass and Greco were ultimately not endorsed. The Finger Lakes Times reported Cass and Greco's anger, but not the Committee's reasons for the decision. Cosentino was endorsed, but handed his endorsement back to the Committee. Again, the Times tried to portray his actions as a noble gesture of solidarity with Greco and Cass, but his letter to the editor states that he made a political calculation that it was against his "own best interest" to accept the endorsement. He's entitled to do that, too.

The Republican party has an equal responsibility to establish criteria and select candidates. So far we haven't heard what criteria they are interested in. Weeks ago, Mr. Beckley stated he considers himself the best person for the job of Mayor. That must mean that he believes he can manage Council better than Mayor Cass. But his past public comments and his numerous opinion pieces, as well as those of some of his running mates (including Councilor D'Amico) have wholeheartedly supported the current administration's operations. The Republicans will likely focus on the symptoms of the problem ('the division on council') rather than the root cause (a lack of leadership and good faith dealing on the part of the administration). With that, they probably hope to stay below the radar and not really take a position on anything of consequence.

Bottom line, our system leaves it up to the parties to field candidates that they believe will work together for the good of the city. Then its up to the registered voters of the City of Geneva to meet, question, and evaluate those candidates and cast their vote for the ones they want working for them.

If You Were the Mayor/ A Call for Reader Responses

During our most recent appearance on WGVA (available here), Ted Baker asked us “What would you do if you were mayor?” While we were quick to point out that neither one of us is interested in becoming mayor, we offered a few ideas of our own on solutions to the problems of local government in the City of Geneva.

For starters, we’d like Council to become a well prepared, highly informed, deeply engaged deliberative body, respectful of dialogue. In our view, it is up to the Mayor to facilitate the group. That would involve facing fears, moving forward with confidence, exercising strong leadership skills, and being well organized.

We’d also like to see the Mayor schedule more work sessions, such as the budget workshops held by City staff and Council in 2006, to allow close interaction between Councilors and City staff. People can roll up their sleeves, study the issues, and solve problems, with lots of interaction, and in a public way.

Another thing we might do is look at well-functioning government bodies to see if we can get ideas for improving our own operating system. We believe one of the reasons for the success of Ontario County Board of Supervisors and Canandaigua City Council is their committee system. Unfortunately, the Geneva City Charter frowns upon standing committees. The alternative, that we have right now, requires councilors to serve as a “jack of all trades” on issues from public safety to public works, debt service to recreation services. We know what the other half of that old cliché is, and we think it should be changed in the name of better government.

The buck should stop with the Mayor. The Mayor is the public leader, accountable to the voters, and ought to lead the Council in setting a course for the City. He is then responsible for giving direction to City staff, who are our career civil servants and government professionals.

Right now, we have an inversion, where city staff often sets the agenda for Council. Council is often in a reactive, rather than a pro-active mode. Whether you like the results or not, you can appreciate the problem of having non-elected people calling the shots. That needs to be the other way around and it is up to the Mayor to lead that effort.

Of course, we’d like more open discussion. Get things out of the back room and onto the Council floor. We shouldn’t worry about how much time that takes. If a proper discussion means two meetings each month, so be it. Council used to meet twice a month, until about 2005, and got a lot of business done, including the Hampton Inn, the Social Security Building, the Seneca Falls Savings Bank, and the Lyons National Bank

Lastly, the Mayor should foster a collaborative partnership between Council and the City Manager. There is an International City Manager’s Association of which our own manager is a member. They have a code of ethics that clearly specifies the role the Manager should play and how he should interact with his Council. The Mayor’s role is to ensure that these standards of professionalism are adhered to; that the City Manager deals with Council as a body rather than cultivating individualized personal relationships with councilors that lead to one-on-one deals being struck outside of the public meetings.

There’s much more to say, but that’s an overview of what we talked about with Ted Baker. We never have advance notice of the questions he’ll be posing to us, and the ideas we came up with in the interview were just our initial reaction to the question. But we realized, after the interview, that this is a great question to pose to the community at large. We’d now like to ask our readers the question Ted Baker asked us: “What would you do if you were Mayor?” Let us know .

Radio Appearance Friday 8:35am on 1240 AM

We have a regularly scheduled radio appearance on the third Friday of each month. In June, that means its tomorrow!

It was a pleasant surprise to hear that, after our last appearance, there was a caller to the station who wanted to pose a question to us. Ted Baker is a great interviewer, posing pertinent questions and probing follow-ups, but he agrees that questions from other interested people are a good thing. The show is not set up to be a call-in session, but we encourage people to submit comments/questions/suggestions here and we'll see if we can work them into this or future shows.

Click below to add your thoughts.

Q: What's Black and White and Green All Over? A: Hybrid Police Cars in Ohio

When New York City Mayor Bloomberg announced last week that the Big Apple’s fleet of yellow cabs would be converted to all hybrid vehicles by 2012, it got us thinking about the possibilities for Geneva’s municipal fleet.

Hybrids are traditional looking cars that are powered by both a gasoline engine and an electric motor. They get excellent gas mileage and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, so they are both economical and environmentally friendly.

The Ford Motor Company has teamed up with the Cleveland, Ohio, and other, police departments on a “Hybrid Patrol” program using Mercury Mariner Hybrid cars to raise awareness of the possibilities for fuel savings among municipal fleets. Police cars typically spend a great deal of time idling and would be good candidates for fuel saving models. Seattle, WA police have started adding hybrid Ford Escapes and Toyota Camrys to their fleet.

Question is, would a hybrid modified law enforcement specs have the muscle it takes to get the job done?

A report comparing performance data of the Ford Interceptor and a hybrid car is available here.

We’re not convinced that green police cars are a viable option, but City Council is following the lead of the US Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, and the International City/County Managers Association in rethinking energy efficiency in all facets of the community. Not only is it environmentally responsible, but it's a matter of saving money on energy as well.

When it comes time to purchase new vehicles, there are likely some options that would be more fuel efficient. The city manager’s car, for example, doesn’t need to travel at 110 MPH, so we think a hybrid would do just fine.

4256 Hits, 1 Error

Our May appearance on Ted Baker’s morning show is now available. It contains a factual error that we want to correct. 11 minutes into the interview, Augustine addresses the County Revolving Loan Fund and the cited problems involving loans to the Geneva IDA about the incubator building. It is during this discussion that a factual error was made.

Augustine stated, “[t]his is public money and there is a standard of accountability for that. So, when we see a document that says that no loan application was filed until two and a half months after the monies were dispersed, well, I’m sure that was done for expediency to help the businesses along, to serve some public purpose, but that doesn’t relieve anyone of the obligation of being the watchdogs of the public dollar. This is not monopoly money, this is tax money.”

In the interest of full disclosure, we wish to set the record straight on this matter. The Geneva IDA loan application was filed two and a half years after the money was dispersed. This was detailed in the list of loan irregularities that we posted here .

Councilor D’Amico made a comment about Pete Rose. We weren’t sure how to interpret that reference, but we’re happy to report that we surpassed his career hit record (4,256) on June 2nd. We’re not gamblers, but with only one error so far, it looks like our credibility is a pretty safe bet.

City Manager Evaluation is Council's Primary Responsibility

The relationship between the City Council and the City Manager is often compared to the private sector, with the Council serving as a Board of Directors and the Manager as CEO. Whether you like this analogy or not, it is useful for highlighting the basic responsibility that each Councilor has to the people of the city—evaluating the Manager’s performance. Like a Board of Directors who must determine if the CEO has run the company in a way that protects the shareholder’s interests, the Manager’s annual performance evaluation is a means of communicating goals and priorities.

In the past, Council approached the evaluation process haphazardly. The results were not great, and the City Manager was not provided much in the way of meaningful feedback. However, in 2004, Council adopted a new strategy for evaluations, creating a form that better reflected the key responsibilities of the Manager’s position, and providing an opportunity for Council to take a more active role in goal-setting.

The evaluation is supposed to occur on or before the anniversary date of the City Manager’s contract, which is July 19th. The evaluation looks back on the prior calendar year’s activities and accomplishments, and makes a recommendation for a salary increase to be included in the following year’s budget. The timing is meant to allow Council adequate time to complete the evaluation (the first quarter); to negotiate with the City Manager (the second quarter); for the City Manager to include the agreed upon increase in his budget proposal (third quarter); and for Council to approve it (fourth quarter) before beginning the process again the following January.

Unfortunately, it has never once gone so smoothly. This all came to a head in early February, when council voted 5-4 to grant the City Manager a 5% retroactive increase without an evaluation having been completed (you can read the minutes here). It brought to light the need for Council to regroup and commit to bringing some integrity back to the process.

On February 21, Council met to reach agreement on the evaluation process. You can see it detailed here. One month later, in March (meeting minutes available here), the Mayor indicated that a meeting with the City Manager would finalize the evaluation form and the process would begin. You can view the finalized form here. The evaluation form was distributed in April to all councilors and was due to the Mayor (via the City Clerk’s office) on May 31st. We look forward to the next step, which should be a special meeting of Council to review the evaluations, the City Manager’s self-evaluation, and to work on producing the consensus document to present to the City Manager as the “Council evaluation.”