"305" Part III: You can tell Chicken Little the street is not falling

In our last post on the hearings about 305 Main Street, we touched upon the condition of the gas station basement walls,and we promised to provide more information. The condition of the walls is important in and of itself, but also, because of the role played by the walls in supporting the City street. Well, here’s the next part:

At the hearing that was held, a neighbor of 305 expressed concern about the condition of the ‘retaining wall.’ City resident Cynthia Hsu read aloud from the City’s report on that issue. The report, prepared for the City by Prudent Engineering (you can read in its entirety here) analyzed three options for fixing the wall.

One option was to bolster the existing wall, but that would be labor intensive and a shorter-term approach. Another option was to demolish the building and backfill the wall, but that option had the drawbacks of not being a definite solution and requiring the demolition of the total structure.

The third option, and the one most feasible, in terms of cost, labor, and preserving the integrity of the building was to construct an additional retaining wall of concrete, “cast in place.” As you can read in the report, Prudent Engineering labeled this option “minimal cost,” able to be done with the existing structure in place, and a long-term fix.

Hsu’s conclusion was that if the City was really concerned about the building, road, or sidewalk caving in, then quick and effective action was possible, and had been recommended by the city’s own structural engineering firm.

Hsu then read out transcripts of Council meetings from early 2005 (read them for yourself here). Augustine, concerned about the claims being made about the stability of the roadway, asked the then-City Manager to contact the State Department of Transportation to see if they were aware of the problem and could assess it and possibly fix it. After all, Rte. 14 (Main Street) is a state-owned highway and was fully reconstructed just a few years ago.

The then-City Manager assured her that the engineering report would be sent to DOT for urgent review. On June 15th 2005, Augustine asked the then-City Manager if DOT had responded to his request about the status of the road. She was told that DOT had the documents and were reviewing them, but that the City had not yet heard back from them. It seemed to her at the time, and still seems to us currently, that if any sort of collapse were imminent, it would have received immediate attention. It seemed that the State was not highly concerned about the safety of the roadway.

But, wait a minute! At the EPA hearing, a letter from DOT was entered into the record indicating that they had never received any correspondence from the City about this issue (read the letter here). As late as 2007 (two years after Augustine’s initial request that something be sent), the DOT was "unable to find any correspondence" pertaining to the condition of the roadway in that area. If the building had to be torn down because its basement was in imminent danger of collapse, and if that basement wall would threaten the stability of a public sidewalk and a state highway, why wouldn’t the City contact DOT for assistance in remedying the condition? And why doesn’t the current plan for demolition include stabilization of the roadway before the walls are removed?

Anytime a private entity stepped forward to possibly acquire this building, the former City Manager came up with a new reason that Council should not part with it: First it was the soil contamination. Then it was asbestos. Then it was an allegation that the road might collapse.

We can see those roadblocks for what they were: roadblocks. Why? In our fact-based opinion, road blocks were put in place to hold this site for other investment opportunities.

Of course, we don’t approve of those sorts of shenanigans in decision-making: it is entirely unacceptable to promote mis-information, especially about issues of public safety. Public officials cannot engage in games of ‘Chicken Little’ with their residents. In fairness to Chicken Little, he was, indeed, hysterical and suffered from a lack of critical thinking, but he did not intentionally mislead his colleagues.

Excelsior! We Come By Our State Motto Honestly

The state motto (excelsior = “ever upward”) seems to fit the current tax situation across New York. And according to this report in Newsday, the Commission looking into a cap on property taxes (see our previous post on that effort led by Nassau County Executive and former gubernatorial candidate, Tom Suozzi) will not release their report on schedule, but will delay it a few weeks.

We think the delay is understandable. After all, shortly after the Commission’s work got underway, their appointing officer (Eliot Spitzer) resigned as Governor and things became a little disorganized across the Empire State. But now Governor Patterson appears to be settling into his new role, and it’s time to get back to the business at hand.

Through hearings on the issue, it appears that the report has narrowed its scope from examining high taxes in general (including school, county, and municipal tax levies) to focusing mainly on school taxes. We can understand how, in most communities, the school tax levy, and the yearly increases, get the most attention. But school taxes are the taxes most directly determined by the people. Each year residents of the district get a chance to vote the school budget up or down, that’s in comparison to county/city/village/town taxes that are determined by a board of legislators that are elected every few years.

Whether a tax cap is a good idea, for school districts or anyone else, is not the topic of this post. We’d have to know what’s being proposed before we can evaluate it, but we hope that more attention will be given to factors that contribute to the local government portion of people’s property tax burdens. We pointed out in a previous post that the Geneva City School District does not have the highest tax rate in the County. But, amongst municipalities, the City of Geneva’s rate is the highest. Tax bills have several components, there is the Ontario County tax (still under $7 per $1000 of assessed value), the city tax rate (for Geneva or Canandaigua) or a town or village rate plus various fire districts or water or sewer districts, and then there’s the school tax. If you look at the school tax as a percentage of total taxes paid, Geneva’s is much lower than other Ontario County cities, towns, and villages. Take Canandaigua as an example. Their City tax rate is $6.19. The County rate is $6.35. Their school tax rate is $17.77. So their total tax per $1000 of assessed value is roughly $32. Of that, the school tax represents about 55% of the bill.
By comparison, Geneva’s city tax rate is over $18, and the school tax is $20. Plus the county tax of $6.35 brings the amount of tax per $1000 to about $45. That means that the Geneva City School District represents only about 44% of city tax payers’ bills.

We point all of this out because it seems that the Tax Cap Commission and the Commission on Local Government Efficiency seem to be converging on the same problem, though we’re not sure anyone from either commission has acknowledged it: New York State’s communities, particularly Upstate cities, are disproportionately burdened by a property-based tax system. Cities provide all of the amenities that make communities worth living in: parks, downtowns, churches, schools, public safety, public facilities. But all of these properties are, according to NYS law (and/or federal law), tax-exempt. Yet, these same cities are expected to support and maintain all of these amenities through property tax levies.

So, our conclusion, regardless of what any report says, is that the property tax system itself--whether it’s for schools or counties or cities or towns or libraries or whatever--is outdated, unfair, and driving people and businesses out of the state. It’s time for government to start rethinking the way it raises money to carry out the very essential functions we all rely on.

A Tribute to Tim Russert

Tim Russert referred to his role-- bringing the truth to the American people-- as a vocation rather than just a job. He worked every day to get to the bottom of big issues, to hold elected officials accountable, to help everyone get the facts they need to make informed decisions.

In an interview with Larry King (May 23, 2006), Russert described the inspiration for his work. He said that he keeps in mind the men and women who work hard everyday for their families, trying to give them the best life they can. He said that he wants to honor their work by allowing them to feel comfortable knowing that someone is working as hard as he can to get them the truth and to put complex issues into digestible bites.

That last point is the most important, in our view. Russert presented the facts, with a point of view, never in an attempt to lead to some predetermined outcome, as more condensed features can sometimes do. Instead, he wanted to get the essence of the story in an accurate and compelling way. He was firm, and hardly ever mean, in holding people accountable for their words and deeds. He was political without being overtly partisan and exceptional at his work without the corresponding ego to cloud it. And he was the kind of guy you felt you could trust just from watching him on television.

As fellow Western New Yorkers, we take pride in his having been a favorite son of Buffalo, New York. His local, blue-collar values of work and family and common sense served him, and us, well as he performed on the stage of global journalism.

Thank you, Tim Russert.

The Return of Philip Morris

Way back on Easter Sunday, Philip Morris, an arts-based economic development consultant from Schenectady, New York, returned to Geneva. He came to help the Geneva Arts Development Council (GADC) find new, more effective ways to support local and regional arts and culture organizations. He was also brought here, in our fact-based point of view, to help, wittingly or not, local Fat Cats get some projects going. [See “Fat Cats and Starving Artists.”]

We base our point of view, in part, on the history of Morris’s involvement in the City. Back in 2002, the Finger Lakes Cultural Center Committee (an ad hoc arts development group which might be regarded as the predecessor of today’s GADC) brought Morris to town. He was supposed to consult on the Committee’s proposed expansion of the Smith Opera House into a “cultural center.” His scope of inquiry included the possible rehabilitation of the historically significant, but dilapidated, 305 Main Street gas station. [See “Accountability 101.”] The Geneva IDA paid for Morris’s 2002 visit.

Since 2002, Morris has enjoyed success in arts-based “arts-based economic development,” in Schenectady. He is executive director and CEO of Proctor’s Theatre, a revitalized, downtown “landmark” theater, built in the 1920s, which has contributed to that City’s and the region’s economy. Morris has also become a blogger, posting regularly on his site, “Morris Code,” housed on the Schenectady Times-Union newspaper website.

Morris’s recent visit to Geneva coincided with the City’s stepped up efforts to carry out the demolition of “305.” Razing that building has been stalled since the previous City Council voted over two years ago to tear it down. That’s because the City administration has not completed a vetting process required before it can legally draw down grant money to pay for the demolition. [See "Accountability 101."] Overall, the return of Morris suggests new development-based “arts-based economic development” efforts are under way in the City.

From his success in Schenectady and Jamestown and his perspective on arts development expressed on his blog, we believe Morris may have a positive role to play in Geneva’s economic future. Question is: Were Morris’s successes with Proctor’s Theatre a cause of Schenectady’s economic revitalization, or were they an effect of other initiatives? And how does what might have happened in Schenectady translate to Geneva’s situation?

Bottom line: Morris developed Proctor’s Theatre under the auspices of the Schenectady Metroplex Development Authority. Metroplex, as it is commonly referred to, is a large scale, regional economic development “zone´ created by the New York State legislature back in 1998-- long before Morris ever signed on with Proctor’s. Morris is not directly part of Metroplex, he does not sit on the Metroplex board, for example, but he has drawn down lots of money from it.

While it may include some art-based projects, Metroplex is not an arts-based economic development agency. Essentially, it has been offering a variety of negotiated economic development “packages” to attract firms to Schenectady County and, hopefully, to create jobs. For example, when Time Warner moved into the Metroplex, it received a $2.5 million package toward infrastructure and other project costs.

Primary funding for Metroplex investment incentives, and hence for any Metroplex funding channeled to Proctor’s Theatre, comes from the portion of the Schenectady County sales tax diverted to Metroplex. In short, the development of Proctor’s Theatre was driven by the pre-existing Metroplex agency, which itself was funded by Schenectady County taxpayers, which itself was enabled by the New York State legislature.

Proctor’s Theatre is one of many arts institutions in downtown Schenectady. To quote from a recent Metroplex report:

Downtown Schenectady is also home to such cultural institutions as the Schenectady Museum & Suites-Bueche Observatory, Proctor's Theatre, Edison Exploratorium, Schenectady Symphony, Schenectady Light Opera, New York Folklore Society, Schenectady County Historical Society, Schenectady Civic Playhouse, Schenectady County Public Library, and the Empire State Youth Orchestra.

In his recent visit to Geneva, Morris facilitated discussions in a variety of venues. In sessions attended by Capraro, he stressed the importance of the arts and culture in “economic turnarounds.” In that regard, he drew heavily upon his own experience in Jamestown, New York, and Schenectady. He also reinforced the necessity of looking at Geneva’s economic development holistically, incorporating the lakefront, downtown, the Smith, and other area educational and cultural institutions into any plan, as he did in his 2002 study. This, in our view, makes good sense--both economically and artistically.

Morris recommended that the community work together to develop some specific “opportunities for arts-based economic development” in the following areas:

1. To incorporate the arts in the lakefront/downtown planning process currently underway;
2. To incorporate a “September to June” perspective on the arts in addition to the current “Summer” perspective in thinking about tourism;
3. To establish clear connections with educational institutions regarding “performance based facilities”;
4. To focus on “existing downtown properties” including the cinema building as ‘adaptive reuse’ projects for the arts;
5. To establish a “cultural event” to identify participants in the development effort;
6. To provide a “money package,” to entice arts-based development through the joint efforts of the City and the private sector.
   

It’s the last item, and public funding in particular, we worry about most, for two reasons:
(1) The Metroplex model, of Morris’ Schenectady experience, could only be duplicated in Geneva if all existing economic development agencies were consolidated. Perhaps such consolidation is already underway, but we believe the public should be involved in determining if, when, and how such consolidation would work in Geneva’s best interest.
(2) If public money is critical to the success of any art-based economic development, we worry the City may become entangled in another fiasco like 305. In other words, the public needs assurances that a project’s feasibility would be fully explored and the decision to invest public dollars would be made in public view.

Currently, the city has an ongoing revenue stream from Wilmorite, as the result of an Empire Zone expansion at Eastview Mall. That money has been earmarked, in theory, for tourism. Rather than rushing to create one big project that will leave the whole fund empty, we believe a better investment could be made in developing an arts-based economic development vision, with some real leadership to carry it out, that would coordinate efforts to build private capital for the arts.

We’re still waiting for Morris’s report which was due in April. In the mean time, we believe growth of Geneva, and the Finger Lakes region, cannot simply rely on an infusion of public money, especially when the money is not there.

Maintaining 'Hometown Character' in the 21st Century: A Conference Report

Last month, the Landmark Society of Western New York held its annual conference. This year’s theme (see our post title) focused on downtown revitalization as the key to creating and retaining the sense of place that people want. You need only to look at Celebration, Florida an actual city planned and built by Disney, to see what makes a community desirable. People want unique architecture, walkability, access to shops, restaurants, and public facilities. What Disney is finding out, however, is that people also want authenticity and that is something you only get in a city with some history (read about the future of Celebration after Disney, here).

The conference (which didn’t discuss Celebration, Florida at all) was aimed at bringing those desirable characteristics back to life in communities with history. From sessions titled “Funding for Downtown Conversion Projects in Historic Buildings,” to “Design and Code Issues in Upper Floor Conversions,” to “Using Zoning and Land Use Regulations to Create the Community You Want,” to “Introduction to Historic Preservation Planning,” the conference was tailor made for the issues currently facing Geneva.

The conference offered five “tracks,” each of which focused on a specific element of community character. One could stay in one track for the full day, thereby learning several strategies for addressing a particular issue, or one could jump between tracks between each session to get a general overview. There were nine Genevans registered for the conference, representing members of several city boards and commissions. From City Council, Augustine and Jason Hagerman attended*. They both attended Track A: Enhancing Main Street; Making Upper Floors Work Again.

As you might imagine, the implicit assumption of Track A was that successful downtowns require a ‘people presence’ 24 hours a day. The idea that downtowns can sustain themselves on a 9a-5pm schedule has been shown to be a recipe for disaster time and time again. So what are the conditions that need to be met in order to create that atmosphere? Turns out it’s a combination of walkability, sustainability, and desirability. People will come to live, work, play and shop in a place that is conducive to living, working, playing, and shopping. That means there must be the kind of housing people want: larger units with historic, urban elements like exposed brick walls, tin ceilings, original mouldings, and big windows. There should also be a mix of office and retail space, interspersed with (as opposed to segregated from) the housing. There must also be well-maintained and strategically located open spaces and other recreational opportunities. You might notice that parking isn’t listed here. This isn’t to say that parking isn’t important, but when you think about it, the benefit of a downtown is that everything is within walking distance. If parking is on the periphery, then people might wander from their intended destination into one of the other offerings. For instance, an appointment with an attorney might turn into lunch at a local restaurant and a little shopping to boot.

Track A also offered a detailed discussion of code issues related to historic structures. The presentation was given by one of the authors of the current building code. And there was a presentation about funding sources and strategies for upper floor conversion projects. All in all, the take away message of the day was “Where there's a will, there’s a way.” It was clear from the discussions that Geneva has all of the ingredients to be a viable downtown community. The question is, do the property owners and the City have the will to work together to make Geneva even better than Celebration?



*Augustine and Hagerman attended as city councilors, but their registration fees were their own out-of-pocket expense, not paid by the city.

Should He Who Pays the Piper Call the Tune--In a Democracy?

Earmarks are tough. No one seems to support them until they are on the receiving end of one. But, even then, are they always a good thing?

The Finger Lakes Times carried an outline of Senator Nozzolio’s latest earmarks for projects in and around the City of Geneva. What’s been dubbed the “21st Century Geneva Initiative” will have five major components:

$10 million: grape genetics facility at the Ag Tech Park.
$4 million: grape crushing facility at the Ag Tech Park for area winemakers.
$5 million: Chamber of Commerce building and visitor’s center on the lakefront.
$1.7 million: Geneva Community Center, already underway in the Town.
$6 million: FLCC extension center, downtown.

The announcements were received by most as good news. Depending on your point of view, some, maybe even all, of the projects are worthwhile. That’s not our point here. What concerns us is how such earmarks can interfere with local government and community-based planning efforts. They make some sense, and are consistent with open and accountable democratic government, if a deliberative process has been completed by a legitimate and appropriate body, and all that’s lacking is funding.

It is safe to say there is consensus that the wine and grape industry are critical to our region’s economic future. Whether it be wine-related tourism or world-class research, people agree on that. We’ve long supported the grape genetics facility, and we have supported the federal legislation that would provide the bulk of the funding. If the influx of state money can help bring that project home, so much the better. Combined with the grape crushing facility, it’s an exciting, and sensible, economic development project for the region. We give funding for those two projects an enthusiastic thumbs up!

The Community Center, an ambitious, altruistic project launched by the Boys and Girls Club also makes sense. It is well underway, and while it has it has its critics, there’s been a planning process and an approval process with a broad base. It’s a win-win for the City and the Town, and money from the state dovetails nicely with the local fundraising efforts that have been undertaken.

As for a lakefront visitor’s center and Chamber building on the lakefront, that’s another story. We’re in the midst of a community based planning process sponsored by the Geneva City Council, and the Geneva Arts Development Council has a similar effort under way, exploring connections between the arts downtown and the lakefront as an art venue. So a visitor’s center should be examined in the context of the current lakefront planning. Same with a Chamber building, with its location long debated.

If Nozzolio is simply saying “when you figure out what is best suited for your needs, the money’s here” then that’s great; but if he is saying “the Chamber of Commerce will remain on the lakefront and this is your money to add a visitor’s center” then that is not okay. A land use plan for the lakefront is exactly what is being developed through the community visioning process, and it should not be preempted by any one person, no matter how much pull he has in Albany.

We are even more concerned about his plan to replace the FLCC extension center at Pulteney and Middle streets (the former Geneva Middle School) with a new center in downtown. This proposal is a “blast from the past.” Previous interest in building a facility downtown met with fierce local opposition. Augustine was part of that opposition and we believe that the arguments against such a move still hold.

First of all, we remind our readers that Geneva’s tax rate is too high. And at least one reason that the rate is so high is because over 50% of Geneva’s property is tax-exempt. So, tax exempt building projects can’t really be called ‘problem-solving’ projects.

Second, Geneva has very little land available for new development. Therefore, we must be seeking the highest and best use for each parcel under consideration. Calculating the ‘highest and best use’ is somewhat subjective, but it is a combination of catalytic factors for stimulating the local economy. If the community did not already have a community college extension center, we might think differently about this. But the extension center would not be new, merely relocated, and that doesn’t justify taking a broad swath of downtown land for a tax-exempt building.

If our downtown were a vast wasteland of open space, with no prospect of private investment, we’d consider the college extension center a reasonable proposal. But history, current trends, and the market potential show that downtown is a place where real expansion, using private dollars and generating taxable, value-added properties is Geneva’s reality. So we shouldn’t jump on the ‘save us with a large public facility’ bandwagon too quickly.

And speaking of the existing extension center, that brings us to our last argument against putting $12 million of our tax dollars (state and county) into a new building. Another thing Geneva should avoid (besides more tax exempt properties) is creating more ‘white elephant’ buildings. Neighbors surrounding the former Middle School fought hard for an acceptable reuse of that property. Apart from FLCC, the prospects were quite dim. Years of marketing, community meetings, and petitioning from the neighborhood watch group led to the current arrangement. The building has been tax-exempt from its construction, and has been an academic facility for just as long, so a tax-exempt academic use (like a community college) seems the perfect fit. In addition, student (and some business) concerns about parking, made the Pulteney Street facility ideal.

That leads to perhaps the most glaring part of this proposal--the lack of community input. Clearly, some members of the community seem to be aware of this plan, but not all members of city council were briefed and the users and neighbors of the current facility were not consulted. Senator Nozzolio references a meeting in February, which Augustine attended. The ‘meeting’ was actually a luncheon, attended by Town and City officials as well as local Republican party committee members. Hobart and William Smith Colleges President Mark Gearan was present, but the FLCC President was not. In passing, a reference was made to “increasing the Colleges’ presence in downtown.” Augustine hoped this meant that HWS would rent some downtown storefront space for college merchandise or lease some upper-floors housing. Nozzolio also spoke about coordinated programming between Cayuga Community College and the Auburn community. But at no time did anyone even remotely suggest relocating the extension center. If we’ve learned anything from the past few years, it’s that government decision-making needs to be community decision-making.

So, we wish Nozzolio godspeed in pursuing funding for the first few projects. They reflect an appreciation of the local decision-making process and the community’s needs. But we hope Senator Nozzolio can appreciate the role of the average citizen in evaluating the FLCC and lakefront proposals.

Council Meeting Wednesday Night

City Council will meet, in open session, Wednesday night. The agenda is available here. It includes the appointment of the new city manager and a presentation from the city's financial consultants.

The meeting begins at 7pm at the Public Safety Building.

The First 152 Days of the New Council (January 1-May 30, 2008): City Manager Search Is All-Absorbing

Former Mayor Don Cass was ousted at the polls and has dropped out of sight; former City Manager Rich Rising retired to the Beach; former City Attorney Clark Cannon resigned in a huff, and then came back to work for twice the hourly rate.

Capraro lost an election by nine votes. Having successfully petitioned the Attorney General of New York State to look into widespread irregularities in the election, Capraro was deprived opportunity for the Assistant Attorney General to inspect voting machines-- that thanks to the re-setting of voting machines by Ontario County election officials. He remains civically engaged. Augustine continues the fight for open government and accountability from her Council seat.

Councilor Ron Alcock campaigned against disunity and dysfunction, but he has appeared cantankerous and divisive during the televised meetings. Councilors Hagerman and O’Malley are collegial and Mayor Einstein is doing his best to be inclusive and keep the peace.

The Finger Lakes Times has run only two editorials on Council action, one to scold Einstein and another to support Ken Camera’s call for a full SEQR review of the proposed ethanol plant in Seneca County. They have not covered NoStringsGeneva-- which goes to show their previous stories on Geneva’s fact-based point of view were only to do the bidding of Cass and Rising.

Council has been meeting frequently, with the vast majority of meeting time spent behind closed doors, in executive session, hiring a new City Manager. According to the minutes posted on the City of Geneva website, from January 2, 2008 to May 7, 2008, Council met 14 times from January 2, 2008 to April 30, 2008.

The meetings were as follows:
1. January 2: Regular Council Meeting (organizational meeting)
2. January 23: Work Session (multi-year financial plan)

Executive Session (City Manager search)
3. February 6: Regular Council Meeting
Executive Session (town sewers)
4. February 20: Special Council Meeting (ethanol plant)
5. March 5: Regular City Council Meeting
Executive Session (topic unspecified)
6. March 11: Special Council Meeting (City Manager search)
7. March 19: Special Council Meeting (City Attorney position)
Executive Session (City Manger Search)
8. March 26: Special Council Meeting
Executive Session (town sewers)
9. April 2: Special Council Meeting
Executive Session (employment histories)
10. April 3: Special Council Meeting
Executive Session (City Manger search)
11. April 4: Special Council Meeting
Executive Session (City Manager search)
12. April 9: Special Council Meeting
Executive Session (City Manager search)
13. April 23: Special Council Meeting
Executive Session (City Manger search)
14. April 30: Special Council Meeting (City Manager search)

Other:
May 7: minutes not yet posted

According to accounts in the Finger Lakes Times, all of the meetings since May 7th (over eight meetings total) have been executive session meetings to interview candidates or otherwise discuss the city manager search process. That means that City Council has met over 20 times in just five short months...a record-setting schedule.

Besides the City Manager search, there’s been little action on Council. Back in January, Council looked, some, into the fire horn that some residents and tourists find obnoxious and decided to leave it be. They’ve taken a stand on community based regional planning and passed a resolution concerning the ethanol plant in Seneca County. They are trying to comply with federal procedures for drawing down grant money to demolish 305 Main Street, finding out what Capraro and Augustine and NoStringsGeneva and the 305 group had been saying all along about flaws in the process were true. There is a Quality Communities lakefront planning process underway, but Council is not directly involved in that undertaking. D’Amico and Alcock have spent their time working to reverse the flow of traffic on West Street, something they say was a major issue during their campaign, and it looks like the rest of the council will follow along. The green committee, the code of ethics, and the neighborhood safety committee are still in the works.

While they’ve approved a lot of spending and new debt for road construction projects, there has been no public discussion about initiatives to either increase revenue or cut spending. That sounds like the Council might be gearing up for a significant tax increase. Sounds like that will be the first item on the new manager’s agenda.