Private Police Deal in NH - A 3rd Angle . . .

We sometimes say we would like government to be run more like a business. It occurred to me that, with these police "protection" contracts the New Hartford Police Department is getting into with the mall, the cinemas and hospital, the NHPD has gone into the private security business.

Businesses sell their services to grow and, if they know what they're doing, increase profits. NHPD seems to be doing the same thing, trying to grow its business while competing with private firms.

But, unlike a business, Town Police are not subject to market forces that private businesses are subject to . . . the forces that drive businesses toward efficiency . . . the forces that will put a business OUT of business if it cannot compete.

Unlike a REAL business, the Town Police can simply hit up the taxpayer for more money instead of becoming more efficient. It can simply hit up the taxpayer for benefits and perks that a private security business might not be able to provide and, based on the posts on NH Online the last couple days, seems to be doing exactly that.

Town Government is NOT a business . . .

The fact that the NHPD seems to be "growing" its "business" by selling services to private entities suggests that NHPD is far bigger than it needs to be, and needs to be downsized.

If the officers involved want to go into the private security business, they should to it on their own time and on their own dime.

. . . and if they choose such a route of being on their own time and dime, they STILL are bound by ethics regulations not to do anything that would conflict with their official duties.

Dissecting Police Pay in New Hartford

I was going to blog on this, but Cathy at New Hartford Online saved me the trouble by doing an excellent analysis (with spreadsheets!) of New Hartford Police pay and overtime [HERE] and [HERE]. 

One must conclude that a gift of Town money and property is being made to various private entities because the costs of these private patrols when overtime and benefits are included far exceeds what the Town receives. This violates Article 8 section 1 of the NYS Constitution.

Hope for Change . . .

Two small statements in two separate editorials in today's OD provide two tiny instances of hope that local leaders are finally waking up to the importance of Utica to the viability of the surrounding area, and that the structure of local government no longer makes sense. A third article provides the evidence that reorganization is needed.

In Guest view: Oneida County Democrats won’t be silent minority County Legislator Frank Tallarino of Rome said:

Consolidation is the most attractive and the best way to save money. But you are preaching to the choir. County government welcomes consolidation; the towns and villages have difficulty relinquishing the power and jobs they have held for decades.

Along with the suburban expansion that has crippled the cities — particularly Utica — there is the financial burden of maintaining town and village governments. Every town has expanded toward its villages or city and the number of government entities exist are an outrage.

In Our view: Redistricting Oneida County worth study, in reference to a parochial mindset the OD editors state :

The Charter Reform Commission’s proposal to extend county districts in the city of Utica into neighboring municipalities could be a key step in reshaping this attitude. Clearly the city of Utica shares commonality with many of the towns it borders, and broadening those districts only makes sense. Contrary to what some might believe, the health and stability of the city of Utica have a direct effect on its suburbs. When the city suffers, it hurts us all.

These views should provide the lens through which county policies must be reexamined . . . not with an eye toward further expanding county government to assume traditional city/town/village services (such as 911, sewage, water, and garbage services) , but rather, to discern where the county government has enabled parochial interests to continue to exist by providing such services in place of (and which would be better managed by) an enlarged local government. . . with an eye to eventually withdrawing from them.

In Sewer fees sore point for suburbs we see more "enablement" of parochial interests at the direction of the county. The county intends to collect a fee that will be used to partially defray local sewer repair costs, but hasn't figured out yet just what it will spend the money on. What seems to be happening is more redistribution of costs from one community to another -- with the County acting as arbiter and Utica, because it is the population center, being the ultimate piggybank (loser) as usual.

The County also hasn't figured out what it will do if local communities do not implement the fee, preferring to "cross that bridge" when it gets to it.

All this should have been thought about before the Consent Order was signed -- as pointed out in this blog. Figuring things out along the way, however, is the typical approach around here and ultimately creates more problems down the road, such as those described in today's article.

And why not do it this way? What ever the county legislators decide, half of them are unaffected because their constituents aren't in the sewer district. . . . "Let the other guys decide when they have to do something" seems to be the thought process . . . but by then, the options have become limited.

We (Utica, NH, Whitestown, Marcy, Deerfield, NYMills, Whitesboro, Yorkville, Oriskany, NH Village, Clayville) all share a sewer system largely controlled by outsiders. This makes no sense! We also share a water system. There should be 1 municipality controlling this, allowing everyone in the district to share the costs, the control, and the benefits:

The Municipality of Greater Utica.

Distractions . . .

"Students learns (sic) about disabilities"

"With one hand frozen at their sides, New York Mills first and second graders Monday attempted to put on sweaters and jackets, simulating how a stroke patient has to get dressed."

While this exercise is well-intentioned, it is an example of why our kids can't read, do math, don't know our history, don't understand how our government works, and don't know basic scientific principles. There are too many distractions from the children learning the core knowledge that they are expected to know.

If not learning about disabilities, its the ride for missing children, or drug awareness, or recycling . . . if not honoring their teachers (with teacher authored skits) or international cup-stacking competitions which were also OD stories of the last couple weeks.

Your money, and your children's time are being wasted.

The Same Old New Hartford Games ...

Now the Town Board is hiding behind an undisclosed attorney's letter to justify transferring Fees in Lieu of Mitigation from one account to another for spending. And it looks like Woods Road work will receive a lot of the funding. Now just whom would be benefiting from that largess? New Hartford Business Park, perhaps?

Of course, the fees were taken from particular developers in lieu of mitigating the environmental impacts of their developments. And now the fees are being transferred to benefit another developer, rather than mitigating impacts. . . . impacts that are currently affecting people.

How much relief will the people in New York Mills along Royal Brook get from the runoff from Consumer Square by work on Woods Road?

Ms. Krupa, can you answer that question? It was a nice game you played for the home crowd last week over the budget, but we aren't stupid. You are an attorney and know that the Town fed selective information to outside counsel to get the opinion that the Town wanted. . . . the one that would allow funds to be used for something other than mitigating the impacts of the projects they were collected upon.

If I am wrong, then the Town should waive its attorney-client privilege to prove it.

We the People paid for this outside counsel's opinion, and also paid for inside counsel, the Town Board, and the Town Supervisor. Yet, somehow, we who pay and who are directly affected are not entitled to see this letter, or what was sent to the attorney to generate it.

There is a funny thing about privileges such as the attorney client privilege: When they are asserted to prevent disclosure of things that should be disclosed, they will support the drawing of a negative inference.

This Town Board and Town Administration still has something to hide.

PS... If anyone is acting under the delusion that things will be different under Mr. Tyksinski, you now have been given a reason to think again:

"Town Supervisor-elect Patrick Tyksinski said he doesn’t think any of the money should be paid back, no matter what the contracts state."

Just keep that statement in mind if you are thinking of entering into a contract -- any kind of contract -- with the Town of New Hartford during the next four years.

The Princess, the Marchesa and the OD . . .

I'm glad Utica Daily News presented the "other side" of the Princess Lenska story. The Observer-Dispatch's unprovoked attack on her credibility was like pulling up the "Welcome" mat and turning out the lights. Here is someone from outside the area who is actually investing in a beloved Utica landmark, hasn't asked for a dime of public funds, and -- if we're lucky -- may sponsor some cultural events, and the first thing the OD thinks of is questioning her title?

In so far as the embassy response, did the OD ever stop to think that the existence of Polish royalty might be considered a threat to the Polish government, and, therefore, would be something to deny?

UDN quoted the princess as saying:

"I did a lot of research online found that there's this core group of people who hate this city have been doing everything possible to destroy the city of Utica--pull her down," she said.

An interesting statement ... especially coming from an outsider, no? Why do I have a nagging feeling that the royal title would not have been questioned if Lenska had chosen a property in New Hartford?

The unwelcoming attitude was unnecessary and, really, very Un-Utican (though the OD isn't "Utican" anymore anyway). For over 100 years Utica has opened its doors to thousands of refugees from all over the world, most of whom were dirt poor, but took their new found freedom and made something of themselves. . . . and Utica was a richer place for it. Why should it be different for a princess?

Geez . . . . We had a "Marchesa" for years and no one cared about the authenticity of her title. Why is it so different today? What mattered back then was the pleasure she brought to a lot of Italian American families on her radio show 50 years ago... and her striking presence in the community. Titles aren't important -- this is America, after all. What counts is what people do.. . . And it will be the same for HRH Lenska . . . if she is given a chance.

Maybe the OD is showing the fear of some of our local society matrons . . . afraid of being pushed out of the limelight by someone with cachet, perhaps?

Princess Lenska, don't be discouraged by the OD (or the other naysayers). When ever people are asked in local public meetings what Utica needs most, "a new newspaper" is the invariable response.

Bring a touch of royal class, help this community shake off its moribund grayness, rattle the cages of our so-called "elite," . . . and you will earn the title of Princess in our hearts.

Small Change in New Taxford . . . and Unanswered Questions . . .

Lucky New Hartfordians! Their taxes will go up only 46% instead of 54%. New York Mills residents fare much "better." Their NH Town taxes go up "only" 620% instead of 1600%!

Some of the small cuts that were made are illusory . . . "Cutting" 30K for a Town Comptroller position isn't a real "cut" because the position had not been budgeted for in years. "Cutting" 30K for a Town Attorney's salary only will invite more hourly billing. "Cutting" 64K for "seasonal" employees will likely get parlayed into more overtime for regular employees.

Two UNMENTIONED things stick out in this story.

1) There are no apparent cuts to the New Hartford Police Department (except possibly a police vehicle). This is the case even after it was pointed out to the Town Board that the NHPD has committed the equivalent of 1/2 a man-year of police service to Marquee Cinemas in a purely private deal. On information and belief, there are several other deals out there. If NHPD can provide private security, then the NHPD can take a serious cut . . . and the officers can be released to work for the private security firms that would otherwise likely be taking on this work.

2) Ms. Mowat has never explained the up and down tax increase in New York Mills in an understandable way -- neither at the meeting in NYM, nor in the press. In the October 29th OD re the 1600% increase she said,

"The massive hike would be the result of an apparent accounting error made in 2003, New Hartford Budget Director Heather Mowat said Wednesday."

Today she says of the reduction to a 620% increase,

"The change is due to the fact that the state Comptroller’s Office declined to give an opinion on a possible accounting error by the town, Mowat said."

There is obviously a lot here that is not being explained.

The OD has been made aware of the police contract with Marquee, but not reported on it. How much money has the NHPD taken in on these private security details? Where is the money accounted for in the budget? What is the cost of the promised overtime to the taxpayers?

Ms. Mowat brought up (a) an alleged 2003 accounting error to explain a 1600% tax increase, and (b) the lack of a comptroller opinion to explain the decrease to 620%. Neither (a) nor (b) explain anything. As usual (when New Hartford in involved), the Observer-Dispatch glosses over this with no substantive information. What was the nature of the alleged 2003 accounting error that presumably resulted in a tax reduction in the NYM NH-Town tax rate that justifies reversal now? Why does the state comptroller's refusal to issue an opinion cause the proposed tax increase to drop from 1600% to 620%? Reading between the lines, it sounds like Ms. Mowat was trying to get a state opinion that would support a 1600% tax increase in NYM!

Both the press on occasion and Ms. Mowat have pointed out that the Whitestown Town Tax in NYM is significantly higher than NH . . . seemingly to provoke Whitestown NYM residents to get their NH NYM neighbors to shut up. But there is a story there too that is not being covered. Why is the Whitestown tax rate in NYM so high? Is Whitestown charging NYM residents for Whitestown Police, because that would seem to violate the Town Law . . . or are there other expenses that the public doesn't know about. Contrasting how NYM residents are taxed by New Hartford and by Whitestown should reveal a lot about the two towns. Why is there no reporting on this?

Wednesday Is Tar-and-Feathers Day in New Hartford . . .

Rarely have we seen in recent times the public outcry witnessed in New Hartford at recent budget meetings . . . .

However, this morning's Observer-Dispatch reports "Few cuts so far to proposed N. Hartford budget." Only Ms. Krupa seems to understand what is at stake, but everyone else seems paralyzed or fearful of making a move. . . . but there was no paralysis or fear when they voted all the spending increases that got N. Hartford into its fiscal mess.

Significant cuts can and must be made. It is clear that the police department can take significant cuts when they can offer to sell their services to paying clients. . . . and, connected with police, is that patronage mill NH911 call center that duplicates County 911.

The public has spoken loud and clear that they WANT cuts. So, just who does the Town Board represent?

Maybe the public needs to remind them -- again -- on Wednesday.

It's Time to Gore the Sacred Cow of "Education" . . .

Headlining the Local Section of Yesterday's Observer-Dispatch was this AP story: "N. Y. Senate coalition vows to reject school aid cuts." A "new coalition" of upstate and suburban Democrat senators (including local Senator Valesky) are going to join Republican senators to refuse Gov. Paterson's proposed mid-year 4.5% cut in school aid. Assemblyman Townsend struck a similar note in last week's Utica Daily News.

Last week we also saw this school-related headline: Stacking cups toward world record.

Providing education, undoubtedly, is one of the more important functions of government. Parents want their children to be knowledgeable about the world around them, to be able to make sound decisions, to be able to cope with daily life, and to be able to earn a living. Society requires a citizenry that is sufficiently educated to lead and run its many institutions -- which maintain order, which supply everyday needs, and which maintain security. Education is so important that, for some, it is worth whatever price is placed upon it. . . . But is it worth the price that we are actually paying? And is what we are getting what we think we are paying for?

The cup-stacking story suggests NO on both counts. . . . as did the Pinwheels for Peace, "Pajamas, Pep Rallies and Posters", Yoga, volunteer celebration, and Kernan Kidz at Kollege stories of the recent past (among others). Schools are not the places of learning that they once were.

As noted last month ("Knowledge Is (Still) Power") teaching methodologies and objectives have been drastically changed, necessitating ever increasing levels of staff while producing lower returns.

Let's not forget the huge "stimulus" package by former Gov. Patacki for massive school construction all across the state that will put $300 million into Utica schools alone. Imagine the cost of this program as it is replicated all across the state.

The importance of "education" has been co-opted by special interests, including the Teachers Union, Construction Workers Union, publishers, contractors, and architects, to enrich some while advancing the political interests of others.

Midyear cuts to education can and should be made. We can do without a few cups to stack. In fact, Midyear is the BEST time to do it because school districts will not be able to ask for money from their local taxpayers for months. Needed cuts in staff and nonsense programs will have to be made. . . .and maybe the idea will sink in that one can accomplish more with less IF the right choices are made.

The education "sacred cow" has run roughshod over the taxpayers for years. It is time that it is gored.

Private Police Deal in NH - Another Angle . . .

New Hartford Online poked some fun at the NH Town Police - Marquis Cinemas Deal: Planning a Vacation?

Don't leave town until you "rent" a New Hartford Police Department car to sit in your driveway or outside the front of your home!

A Funny Post! . . . But it raises a serious point . . . more serious than that fact that town taxpayers will be on the hook for the "rent-a-cop's" benefits, retirement, Workers' Comp., and exposure to liability if something goes wrong.

This isn't the Town merely providing a "service" like garbage pickup. The deal is more than merely providing security services similar to (and in competition with) those provided by several private companies in the area. Town Police have law enforcement authority that security services don't have. They can write you a ticket or drag you to the town lockup. . . .

And now the Town's enforcement authority has been sold to certain select customers such as Marquee.

This should make you very uncomfortable. Would you be confident of even-handed law enforcement in New Hartford knowing that certain people or businesses are paying "clients" ??? The police have already chosen "sides."

Has government become so corrupt -- and the electorate so jaded -- that no one sees this as a serious problem?

"Government for Sale" unfortunately seems to be a way of life in New Hartford . . . Whether it is police services for certain businesses; constructing roads, water, and sewer lines and following irregular review procedures for a private business park; maintaining a memorial for certain elite families (the Library); or building storm water detention structures to fix run-off problems that the Town allowed private developers to cause . . .

If you have enough money, or know the right people, you can get a "higher level of service" than the "average Joe" -- if you are in New Hartford.

Private Police Deal In New Hartford

It looks like the Town of New Hartford Police Department thinks it is in the private security business. According to the terms of an agreement signed by a police lieutenant and the Marquee Cinemas:

1. A member of the New Hartford Police Department will be assigned to the Marquee Cinemas every, Friday, Saturday and Sunday, during the time frame of 8:00 PM to approximately 12:30 AM.
2. A marked police car belonging to the New Hartford Police Department will also be assigned to this location.
3. The member of the New Hartford Police Department will be on duty (working over-time) and in uniform, as an employee of the Town of New Hartford.

Per the agreement, the Cinemas will reimburse the Town for the overtime, and will pay $20 per night for the car . . .

This agreement appears to have been entirely unauthorized.

The Police Department is part of Town Government, something that we the taxpayers have paid for. That police car is owned by the people of New Hartford, not the police lieutenant. New Hartford Police is NOT a private security business that can enter protection deals at its own will. Only Town Government has the right to commit these resources to particular purposes (and even then there there are legal and constitutional limitations). There is nothing in Town Board Minutes authorizing this deal.

While the agreement gives an impression that the actual cost of this service is covered, nothing is mentioned about how this "over-time" will inflate the salary upon which the "Marquee Detail's" officer's retirement benefit will be calculated-- something that the tax payer will be on the hook for for the officer's retired life.

An unauthorized commitment of public resources to a private purpose . . . A personal benefit to be gained by the public employees that are directly involved in the service. Is that corruption? . . . . Or What?

The Ominous 4th Branch of Government . . .

You've heard of the Legislative Branch (the people who make laws), the Executive Branch (the people who carry out and enforce laws) and the Judicial Branch (the people who interpret and apply laws). But have you heard of what is sometimes called the "4th Branch" of Government -- the one which controls many of your day-to-day activities? It is the "Administrative Branch," but you will not find it mentioned in the state or federal constitutions. It is that alphabet-soup of administrative agencies such as the EPA, FCC, IRS and FERC on the federal level, and DEC, PSC, DOT, Health Dept., Education Dept., and a plethora of authorities at the state level.

While officially they are part of their respective Executive Branches, many of the agencies making up this de-facto "4th Branch" of government have been given their own legislative and judicial powers. Like legislatures, they can make rules that have the force of law. Like courts, they can interpret certain laws, hold hearings, make determinations and impose penalties. Sometimes the same agency makes the rules, prosecutes violations of the rules, and holds hearings to determine compliance with and impose penalties for violations of the rules. Isn't the combination of legislative, executive, and judicial powers in the same people something that our founding fathers sought to avoid when they set up our state and national governments? Does not the combination lend itself to abuse?

In our complicated world, administrative agencies are a necessary evil. When you think of the expansion in the number of things that people can do now over what was possible one hundred years ago, you will realize that the number of ways that people can harm each other has also increased. If people are to live harmoniously with each other and nature, behavior needs to be regulated. Someone needs to make the rules to keep us from destroying each other. “We the People” have properly assigned that role to elected representatives in legislative bodies who enact the laws needed to maintain order. However, many areas require specialized knowledge to be properly regulated. Environmental protection, for example, is one of those areas, requiring knowledge in several areas of science. Most politicians do not have the specialized knowledge, and it is for that reason some of their legislative powers have been given to administrative agencies. The legislature passes laws describing how it wants behavior regulated, and then administrative agencies with expertise promulgate the detailed rules necessary to carry out the legislature's intent. At least, that is the theory of how things are supposed to work. Since most judges also do not have specialized knowledge, administrative agencies have been given quasi-judicial powers. The idea here is that experts with a greater understanding of a particular subject than the average person would be better able interpret and apply complex rules to achieve what the legislature intended. Again, that is the theory of how things are supposed to work. In general, the scheme has worked reasonably well. However, when considering the role of administrative agencies in our government and our daily lives, it is important to keep in mind how they differ from the legislative and judicial branches that they mimic.

Unlike legislatures, administrative agencies are NOT composed of elected representatives, so their rules might not necessarily represent the "will of the people." An important function of a legislature is to prioritize the relative importance of regulating one aspect of people's lives over another. A legislature can balance, for example, the need for a rule to protect the environment against the economic consequences of the rule, such as jobs lost, and determine whether the cost is worth the benefit. An agency that is created to protect the environment by its own nature will prioritize environmental protection over everything else. Balance with other priorities will occur only if the laws within which the agency must operate have been carefully crafted to reflect the legislature's priorities under all circumstances. That is an almost impossible task.

Unlike courts of law, where decisions must be supported by at least a preponderance of the evidence (the burden of proof in civil matters, or evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal matters), determinations by administrative agencies need only be supported by "substantive evidence" and not be "arbitrary or capricious" to be sustained. Even if the administrative record contains a preponderance (the greater amount) of evidence supporting one particular way of addressing an issue, the agency is free to do something different as long as there is SOME evidence to support its determination. This is even the case when an agency is determining compliance or non-compliance with its rules and imposing penalties for the latter. This is because the acts of administrative agencies are viewed as "policy making" and matters of "expert" judgment, allegedly beyond the understanding of reviewing courts of law, with no "right" or "wrong" answers. But how would you feel if you got slapped with a financially ruinous penalty based on "some" evidence?

The ability to promulgate, apply, and enforce rules, with no direct accountability to the voters and minimal oversight by the courts under the guise of having an "expertise," makes the public vulnerable to those whose "agendas" may override their "expertise" -- those who may have insinuated themselves into an agency to benefit themselves or their friends.

In the waning days of the Bush administration, when it appeared that the financial system was going to collapse and attention was focused on the bailout debate, the Treasury Dept. quietly made a five-sentence change to tax guidance that reversed over 20 years of tax policy. This essentially produced a $140 billion windfall for certain banks. Tax lawyers debated -- afterward -- whether there was legal authority for the Treasury to implement the change, but it was clear that no one would have legal standing to challenge the change in court. The change was made without elected representatives' participation. The taxpayers were out the $140 billion. For the change to be reversed, only the Treasury or Congress could do it . . . but Congress had other things on its mind.

During his last years in office, Governor Pataki initiated an action with the governors of other Northeastern states to set up a regional "cap-and-trade" system (the "Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative") to limit the output of carbon dioxide to combat global warming. The system was modeled after a Nitrous Oxide trading system, which was set up years ago under state and federal law to combat acid rain. The CO2 system was eventually put into place a year ago under regulations promulgated by the Department of Environmental Conservation -- but unlike the Nitrous Oxide system, there was no federal law existing at the time that the state system was intended to implement. Even if the premise is accepted that global warming is a threat and is caused by mankind's output of CO2, there was no evidence whatsoever that the effort of the ten participating states acting on their own, without the rest of the country, could have a detectable impact. The move was more a symbolic gesture or political statement by a governor who was contemplating a run for the Presidency than a tangible move to combat climate change. But the effect on the general public would be tangible: New York's already sky-high electric rates would have to go higher, with some analysts predicting significant increases. Additionally, Downstate coal-fired electric plants would be encouraged to shut down -- likely to be replaced by Upstate generating capacity and power lines. Had this matter come before the state legislature, there certainly would have been merits to debate, including the exacerbation of an already horrible Upstate economy. But there was no debate. The system was simply implemented by administrative rule-making, redefining "air pollution" to include CO2. Elected representatives had no say. . . and predictably would not inject themselves into the issue after-the-fact for fear of alienating some constituency.

Currently, farms that have operated for generations in the fertile Central Valley of California are being denied water for irrigation, allegedly so that more water could be sent into the Bay area to protect the habitat of a small fish, but possibly sent to support growth in other parts of the state. Cropland has been turned into dust, orchards are dying, unemployment in some areas is around 40%, and farmers who fed a nation must now depend on food handouts from the government to feed their families. Administrative agencies control the water flow. While the situation is too complex to analyze here, what is clear is that many individuals and their families are now unwillingly forced to sacrifice all they own on the alter of government regulation. While there may be ways to rationalize this to avoid government fault, the effect is no different than if the government simply had come in and taken their farms. Again, law makers are paralyzed from taking effective action.

Administrative agencies help maintain order in our society. However, they have become so ubiquitous, and their powers are so great due to their combination of legislative, executive and judicial functions, that it is now possible for them to be used to implement sweeping changes to public policy. Neither debate nor approval by our elected representatives is needed to implement change. Because of this, agencies' narrow perspectives can result in individuals being deprived of their property or livelihood without adequate due process protections. Our founding fathers set up three branches of government to prevent each branch from becoming too powerful. Although they did not anticipate creation of the "4th Branch," they certainly would have understood its potential for abuse.

[The above article originally appeared in the October Utica Phoenix. Be sure to pick up the December Utica Phoenix to read "Oneida County Sticks It to the Villages - And Utica" ... in a news rack near you.]

Make Mine Freedom . . .

An old cartoon (1948) with a message for today . . .

The Attorney General's Misplaced Priorities . . .

NY Attorney General Cuomo has filed an antitrust suit against Intel, alleging

. . . chip maker Intel of engaging in “a worldwide, systematic campaign of illegal conduct,” including paying kickbacks and threatening computer makers, and filed federal antitrust charges against it.

Per his press release:

"Intel’s actions not only unfairly restricted potential competitors, but also hurt average consumers who were robbed of better products and lower prices. "

Why does the NY AG have to involve himself in a "worldwide" issue? The European Union seems to already have this Intel issue well in hand. . . . And has anyone really complained about computer prices being too high with products of poor quality lately? Seems to me that computers are getting cheaper and cheaper while their capabilities have increased.

So what's the NY AG really up to? Oh, I forgot . . . He's protecting NYS' business interests since NYS is now heavily invested in AMD, one of Intel's competitors allegedly hurt by the allegedly illegal competition. . . . Never mind that this investment violates Article VIII of the State Constitution. . . . Protecting big business interests apparently has become the state taxpayers' responsibility.

Why wasn't the Water Authority's violation of a 1917 Agreement investigated? The AG's office was contacted about this several years ago, but they passed the buck. What about the forged police lab report in a Utica criminal case? Who was responsible and why no punishment? How about the sewer violations leading to the Consent Order that now will cost people an additional $600/year on their sewer bills? How was that allowed to happen? How about the Hartford's new office building in New Hartford being built without the proper environmental reviews? Was wrongdoing involved? How about Oneida County's treatment of the Raven Rock situation? Were laws broken there?

An overwhelming number of government-created situations suggestive of government corruption posted on this and other local blogs just cry out for investigation, but nothing ever seems to get done . . . and, like the sewer deal, can wind up costing individuals big money.

The AMD's of the world are big enough to protect themselves. Meanwhile, Who protects the People . . . all those footing the bill for Mr. Cuomo's showboating . . . FROM WRONGDOING BY THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT?

Same Old New Hartford . . .

New Hartford will hold a public meeting on Route 840 access on Saturday.

Town officials would not release the alternatives in advance of Saturday’s meeting, but several ideas have been discussed.

Two days notice . . . no details available in advance . . .

Same Old New Hartford!

OC Scoopin' the Poop at Raven Rock . . .

This story has been "percolating" beneath the surface for some time with almost no coverage from Utica-Rome based media [You have to ask yourself, "Why?"], but, fortunately, News10Now out of Syracuse has been following it for a long time.

Home owners in Raven Rock Estates in Lee have alleged numerous problems with their newly constructed duplex homes that they purchased from Legend Developers LLC. In May '08 a state review board denied a fire-code variance for inadequate fire-walls between units. Later that summer, the developer acknowledged violations, which totaled 116, signed a Consent Order with the OC Health Dept., and promised to fix the violations by Sept. 30 in return for the County waiving most of a $118,000 fine. Time passed, but by November '08, residents were still frustrated. However, the County apparently felt that things were progressing, and did not seem to feel there was a problem.

[OCHD Attorney] Miga says he understands the residents are frustrated, but the health department has done its job to oversee what it is supposed to in its jurisdiction.

"They have met their deadlines and we have reviewed everything. The conditional approval either has gone out or is about to go out. I don't anticipate that there's going to be any additional fines," Miga said "They have paid their filing fees. They've paid a $5,000 fine. And they've have spent a number of dollars in providing a series of maps until we had it right. Both the plat mat and the as built." . . .

Moving forward, the county health department said it's going to give the developers conditional approval and the final map from the developers must be approved by the county health department and the Town of Lee planning department.

According to Attorney Paul Longeretta for the residents:

"My clients do not have a complaint against the Oneida County Health Department. I want to be very clear about that. All they're asking is that the county enforces this agreement that was voluntarily entered into with the developer," said Longeretta.

But that was November, 2008. With November 2009 upon us, Raven Rock residents have now filed a notice of claim against Oneida County.

Home owners are demanding compensation from the county because they say leaders knowingly allowed developers to sell the houses as three bedroom homes, even though they had only been approved and equipped with septic tanks large enough for two.

What happened?

In January, 2009, the County Director of Environmental Health rejected a request to meet with the residents' counsel and transmitted a copy of the "Conditions of Approval" of Raven Rock "as built." (Read the letter . . . there is a "don't annoy me" tone.)

Some of the problems at Raven Rock involved allegedly undersized septic tanks. Sewage has reportedly backed up into showers and sinks. Per NYS regulations, the number of bedrooms is a factor in determining the proper size of a septic tank for a home. Three bedroom homes require a tank with a capacity of 1250 gallons, but homes with fewer bedrooms and without other accouterments such as garbage grinders can get away with a 1000 gallon tank.

In Raven Rock the homes reportedly had been built with 1,000 gallon tanks installed. So the solution here would be to increase the size of the tanks . . . Right? Instead the County has chosen to, in effect, play ostrich and decrease the number of bedrooms it would recognize in each home to make the installed 1000 gallon tanks the correct size. How did it get away with this? See this wording in Condition 12.



The County apparently got the developer's engineer to certify that the constructed homes only had 1 or 2 bedrooms.

The residents must have been surprised to hear this because they had purchased 3 bedroom units, as shown on their floor plans. The Town of Lee should have been surprised because the Town approved of the project as consisting of 17 duplexes with each unit containing 3 bedrooms -- not 1 or 2. The County should have been surprised as well because the Lee approval was filed with the County Clerk in 2004.

It simply is not believable that the County did not know that three bedroom units were built. But now the County accepts a "certification" that makes the problem go away??? Sounds like subornation of perjury to me.

To observers of the shenanigans in Oneida County over many years, this nonsense is not surprising -- but it still is disgusting. The "conditions of approval" were just B.S. , making things more difficult for the homeowners and easier for apparently well-connected developers.

Some county legislators have caught on. Chad Davis recently issued a press release on this fiasco. Unfortunately, a majority of the county legislators on the Public Health Committee, led by the Republican Chairman David Wilcox, don't care to pursue this matter further and have not responded to residents' or Mr. Davis' questions.

Like so many problems around here, even when it comes to violations of the law, it is easier for government leaders to dish out a line of B.S. and pretend there is nothing wrong rather than solve problems. It also appears to be easier for local media to ignore these stories -- reporting them only when unavoidable or when they favor the politicians that the media favor -- than to get to the bottom of these situations. Local media's laziness enables the laziness of our government's leaders ... or worse. The public, too, is at fault, like lemmings voting along party lines, or ethnicity, or neighborhood friendships rather than where candidates stand on the issues -- if the public even knows what the issues are, if the candidates have even formulated a position and if we are lucky to have them aired. As usual, private individuals wind up paying for the malfeasance, but if one is not affected, ignorance is bliss. Government leaders, the media, and the public can only play ostrich for so long.

When will they stop scoopin' the poop?

1600% Tax Increase!

Now its a 1600% tax increase in the NH Town Tax in NY Mills! This is a perfect example of how absolutely nuts our system of local government is.

There was a movement afoot a few years ago among certain residents for NYM to secede from the Towns and form its own town. Meetings were held between the village council and officials of the towns where the towns explained what villagers got for their tax dollars. The opportunity to occasionally borrow equipment was the best they could come up with. After that the NH tax was dropped . . . and so was the movement . . .

Now the taxes are back, and NYM residents have to ask themselves what value do they get from being part of the Towns of New Hartford and Whitestown.

Like NH and Utica subsidize County 911 services elsewhere in the County, but get nothing in return because they meet their own needs, the same thing is happening between the village and the towns. VILLAGE RESIDENTS SUBSIDIZE TOWN GOVERNMENT, getting nothing of substance in return because the village provides all the services.

In theory, total taxes for local services should be LOWER in the villages than in the Towns, because villages are compact and can provides the services to themselves more efficiently. Instead, New York State turns the system inside out by allowing Towns to duplicate village services and to bill village residents for them . . . making the tax burden on village residents higher than in the towns. The natural consequence of that is population loss from villages and gain by the surrounding towns.

IT'S TIME FOR VILLAGES TO END TOWN SUBSIDIES.

Peaceful Proctor Park . . .

Picente Pushes Poison Pill to Preserve Provincial Perks !

"Is consolidating the 911 call centers the right idea? " asks the OD re New Hartford's facility.

Four years ago, a citizens committee called the continued funding and operation of the town’s 911 dispatch center “senseless and irresponsible” due to the fact that its services mirrored those provided by Oneida County.

We have far too much government around here, so I could not agree more that consolidation would be a good thing. Personally, I'm not sold that a consolidation with Oneida County 911 would be preferable to a consolidation of all Greater Utica Police, Fire and Emergency Services into one agency. . . but the public is not ready for that yet. The talk in today's column was Utica and New Hartford joining OC 911, which would raise OC911 operating costs by $1 million . . . . and here's where it got interesting . . . .

All residents in Oneida County pay a 35-cent surcharge to support the county dispatch center as part of their monthly phone bill. County officials have said that if a merger took place, they would charge a new fee to Utica and New Hartford, but not to the municipalities that already use the county center.

Charging the other municipalities wouldn’t be fair because they haven’t had to pay in the past, and Utica and New Hartford previously made decisions to keep operating separate centers, Picente said.

Whoa! "Charging the other municipalities wouldn’t be fair because they haven’t had to pay in the past" ??? What about charging Utica and New Hartford residents the last 14 years for a service that they did not receive? What about charging Utica and New Hartford residents to subsidize cheap services to Rome and the rest of the county? This is OC "fairness!"   This is the OC "Regionalization" Double Standard that Uticans have come to know and "love." It's kind of nice to see New Hartford in the same boat as Utica for a change.

Now Mr. Picente proposes a "new fee" for Utica and New Hartford that other municipalities won't have ... Doesn't that make you feel great???? Makes me feel really special.

Frankly, I do not see how the County could legally discriminate against Utica and New Hartford. But maybe raising more money for OC911 isn't the object of the "new fee." 

We all know how much the County LOVES its "economic engine" New Hartford even to the point of giving it a six-figure "gift" a few months back. . . . or is it really love for certain politically connected individuals?  Could the "poison pill" new fee be calculated to discourage consolidation to preserve patronage jobs? Or to keep the cheap Utica-NH subsidized OC911 services going for the folks in Rome.  Who knows? The good part of this story:

Hopefully the PEOPLE of New Hartford and Utica now realize that they will have no future in Oneida County unless they start sticking together.

NH Online has more.

Some Words From Lord Monckton . . .

From WorldNetDaily: Thatcher adviser: Copenhagen goal is 1-world government

'Global warming' to be used as 'pretext' for 'change'

"At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed," Lord Christopher Monckton told a Minnesota Free Market Institute audience on Thursday at Bethel University in St. Paul.

"Your president will sign it. Most of the Third World countries will sign it, because they think they're going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regimes from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won't sign it," he told the audience of some 700 attendees.

"I read that treaty and what it says is this: that a world government is going to be created. The word 'government' actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity.

"The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to Third World countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, 'climate debt' – because we've been burning CO2 and they haven't. We've been screwing up the climate and they haven't. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government is enforcement." . . .

Monckton argued that President Obama will sign the Copenhagen treaty at the December meeting, without seeking a two-thirds ratification of the treaty by the Senate, or any other type of Congressional approval.

"So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free," he continued. "But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever.

"But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire – it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty. For there is no problem with the climate and, even if there were, an economic treaty does nothing to [help] it."

View the complete video along with Monckton's slide presentation which present the data that refute Mr. Gore and the UN on climate change.

Should Incompetence Be Rewarded?

OD's View: Leaders must find help to fix sewer system

. . . The total tab officials say is necessary to prevent pollution of the Mohawk River: $158 million. Government leaders searching for funding so far have come up empty, and that would mean adding an additional $600 a year to every user’s sewer tax bill.

That’s not acceptable. While taxpayers will have to shoulder some of the cost to upgrade this necessary service, leaders at the state and federal level will need to do what we elect them to do — find grants and/or other revenue sources to help.

The problem is the sewer district’s aging infrastructure. During heavy rain and snow melts, storm water floods into the sanitary system and forces raw sewage into the river. In 2007, the sewer district was slapped with a consent order by the state Department of Environmental Conservation requiring that problems along the Sauquoit Creek line be fixed by Oct. 31, 2014. . . .

This editorial is so far off the mark that it is not funny. While the area's aging infrastructure is an expensive problem that every community will eventually have to deal with, it is not 'the problem' here. 'The problem' here that will cost $158 million to fix was a VIOLATION OF LAW.

When the Federal Government set up the Clean Water Act, it recognized that older communities (such as Utica and our Villages) that had combined stormwater-sanitary sewers could never afford to retrofit their systems to the modern standard of separate lines for sanitary waste and storm water. Looking at the cost-benefit ratio, lawmakers allowed for Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) to exist that would spill very dilute waste from these older systems into the river during severe rain events as opposed to backing it up into people's homes. Over time, these older systems would gradually be brought under more stringent standards, hopefully at a pace that the communities could afford. The law made an exception to preserve the finances of older communities.

However, that exception was lost when the County allowed new separated waste lines to connect to the older systems. While these actions permitted Oneida County and certain suburban jurisdictions to greatly expand their tax bases with new 'growth' on the cheap, they also resulted in the Yorkville CSO being reclassified as an illegal Sanitary Sewer Overflow. Now because they no longer qualify for special treatment under the Clean Water Act, suburban jurisdictions must now bear the cost that the law had hoped they would avoid. The Villages, unfortunately, which saw relatively little 'growth' will now bear the brunt of these costs.

Those running our County sewer system, and suburban planners, should have seen this coming. Either they were blind to it, or they were more interested in fostering 'growth' than environmental protection. Regardless . . .

Is it appropriate to expect grants to pay for local incompetence? That is what The Observer-Dispatch seems to be asking for. . . .

And is it appropriate that we the public who will pay for this keep the same people in charge? That is something we need to decide between now and November.

New Hartford Tax Hike in NYM . . .

N.Y. Mills residents in New Hartford face 700% tax hike will be the story in Tomorrow AM's OD . . .

Why?

New York Mills residents don’t pay for New Hartford police service, and for years, town savings have been used to offset other town costs that the village residents do pay for. . . .

In 2004, the New York Mills Police Department added a fourth full-time officer, and the village requested that its residents become exempt from paying for New Hartford town police, Mowat said.

That was about the same time the town began using massive infusions from its main rainy day fund to balance its budget.

But the main general fund couldn’t be used to pay for the town’s $2.5 million police budget, because not all town residents used the service.

It could, however, be used for services such as clerk’s office activities, town legal fees and parks. That’s also the portion New York Mills residents’ taxes went toward.

Year after year, the majority of the portion of the budget that New York Mills residents contributed to was paid for out of town savings.

Now that the town has burned through almost all its savings, New York Mills residents are no longer shielded from the costs.

New York Mills Mayor Robert Maciol called the increase “very unfortunate.”

The OD makes it sound like the Town is carrying what should be the Village's burden. That is simply not true. In fact, with the addition of the 4th police officer in NYM, it was no longer legal for NH to continue to bill NYM residents for the Town's high-flying police department. [See Town Law §150]. The fourth officer was a good move on the part of the Village.

In so far as the impression is given that NYM residents have gotten away with something the last few years, it really is the other way around. Why should NYM residents, e.g., be paying for storm water management in the Woodberry Road area of NH? But they do.

What services do NYM residents in NH get from New Hartford that they do not already get from the Mills? Nada, niente, nicht, rien -- no matter how you say it: NOTHING. Anything available from NH is a duplication. All NYM residents get from NH is another governmental mouth to feed.

A few years ago some concerned residents wanted the Village to explore secession from both Towns and to form its own Town (if only to get away from paying for duplicate services). After a couple meetings with Town officials where about all the Towns could offer as justification for their taxes was to let the Village borrow pieces of equipment on occasion, the idea went away . . . perhaps after the Town's in-Village tax rate dropped.

Now that the Town plans to sock it to NYM, it may be the time to resurrect the idea of NYM becoming its own Town . . . Why should NYM pay NH for services NYM already provides to itself?

As Clear As Mud . . .

That is the feeling one gets from reading the public-relations-firm concocted press release of Oneida County's "citizen-based" steering committee's recommendations on how the county should pay for the projected $158 million sewer project needed to comply with the DEC Consent Order.

"According to Steve Devan, Oneida County Commissioner of Water Quality and Water Pollution Control, the recommendations include additions to the 2010 Sewer District budget, as follows:

1. The addition of $630,000 in the operating budget to fund district-wide project costs.

2. A consumption-based fee assessed on sewer district users residing in the nine communities tributary to the Sauquoit Creek Pump Station. The fee is expected to raise $1.2 million to fund a capital project debt service account to begin repairs mandated by the Consent Order.

The Committee has recommended that the $1.2 million amount be raised from a consumption-based charge of $1.05 per thousand gallons of water used, per account. This component affects the Villages of: Clayville, New Hartford, New York Mills, Oriskany, Whitesboro, Yorkville; and the Towns of New Hartford, Paris, and Whitestown. The repairs for those nine communities are expected to total approximately $79.2 million, the preliminary engineering data shows.

A second phase of the project, if needed to further reduce the overflows that go into the Mohawk River from the sewer system, would invest approximately $79 million more in district-wide repairs and improvements to the system. The additional amount would be required if the initial work at the community-specific repairs does not yield enough improvement to fully satisfy the Consent Order’s requirements for overflow reduction. Preliminary engineering estimates have placed the total costs of needed system repairs at $158 million at today’s costs."

This professionally produced press piece tells the truth (presumably) ... but not the whole truth.

It distracts us by first recommending that $630,000 (about 0.4% of the $158M total price tag) be added to the operating budget without telling us who will pay for it or identifying what "district-wide" project costs there will be.

It distracts us again by recommending that $1.2 million (about 0.8% of the $158M total price tag) be raised from a suburban sewer user fee without disclosing How was this figure arrived at or what portion of the debt service it will pay for.

After you've gotten through the above trivialities, it then tells us that $79.2 million (about 50% of the $158M total price tag) will be needed for "community-specific" repairs -- Without telling us who will pay for it. Will this come out of Town taxes and Village taxes, or some other mechanism to be determined by whom? Will Village residents be forced to pick up Both a Town share and a Village share? Who will determine that?

Lastly, it tells us that $79 million (50% of the $158M total price tag) will go for "district-wide" work "if needed" without identifying who would pay for it, what "district-wide" work would be appropriate to remedy a violation that occurred only on the Sauquoit line/overflow, or how likely this work would NOT be needed; or recommending a funding mechanism for it.

Here we have a very artfully done press release that does a great job of hiding the facts.

"District-Wide" is a synonym for "Utica pays." Utica residents, again, will wind up paying for a huge chunk of this suburb-county law violation -- carrying the water (literally!) for the suburbs. When will elected Utica representatives wake up and start looking out for the best interests of their constituents?

And in this case, representatives of the Villages better look out for their residents, too. The Yorkville Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) was allowed to exist for many years under an exception to the Clean Water Act that recognized it would be financially impossible for older municipalities (here, our Villages) to retrofit their old systems to bring them up to current day standards. That CSO now has to be shut down becaue of County and primarily Town of New Hartford law breaking. The County and Town of NH increased their tax bases by allowing improper sewer connections-- causing the Villages to now have to spend $millions because they lost their right to use a CSO.

The recommendations of the sewer committee are merely a whitewash and continuation of the current administration's favoritism for suburban Towns at the expense of Utica and the Villages.

Pity the Village Residents . . . and Maybe Utica, Too.

Residents of the Oneida County Sewer District woke up this morning to Sticker Shock on the cost of compliance with the DEC Consent Order.

While the Observer-Dispatch notes that the Town of New Hartford tops the list in terms of absolute costs, less obvious is the potentially ruinous impact to the residents of Villages when their smaller populations are taken into consideration. This becomes apparent when per capita costs are calculated. The Village-Town split is quite striking, even in the New Hartfords where the per capita cost in the Town is less than one-half of the cost in the Village.

The per capita calculations for Village Residents, however, could turn out to be conservative when you consider that Village Residents are also Town Residents and could be made to pick up the per capita costs of their Towns as well -- like they already do for things like highway maintenance and storm water management. Conceivably, the per capita cost in the Village of New Hartford could wind up being $4255 (the sum of the per capita Village and Town costs)!

Let's add insult to injury by considering how these costs were incurred: the violations of the law which led to a Consent Order. The law was violated when separated sanitary waste lines -- PRIMARILY IN THE TOWNS -- were connected to a Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) which made the CSO illegal. The CSO was previously permitted to exist to accomodate the Villages' combined sewer systems. Now that it is illegal, it is the Villages who are forced to pay. But who benefitted from the illegal sewer connections? Mainly the Towns which greatly expanded their tax bases.

The OC Sewer District Advisory Committee will be making recommendations in a few days on how to pay for this mess, so it will be interesting to see how much cost shifting there will be from the "guilty" to "innocent" parties. If the past is any indication, Uticans could get stuck with paying for some of this.

Knowledge Is (Still) Power. . .

The lack of “basic skills” is a recurring topic of conversation among employers and the general public. Almost daily we encounter people who cannot make change, follow a recipe, fill out forms, or write in an understandable way – even among some college graduates! Eighth grade graduates used to have the knowledge and skills to cope with everyday life: balance a checkbook, use measurements in household projects, fill out a tax return or employment questionnaire, read the newspaper, write letters, know how our government works, and vote in an informed manner. High school graduates used to be prepared to enter the workforce, or to continue with specialized studies in college. Two generations ago, graduation from 8th grade or a high school diploma could be depended upon to guarantee these levels of competency -- but no more. Today classes are smaller, use of technology is greater, teachers are better paid (the equivalent of engineers and lawyers in government service), and a greater percentage of local tax dollars go to education. It is counter intuitive that, with all of today's advantages, we often find graduates lacking 8th grade competencies. How did we get to this point? What are the implications for the future?

Although parents bear the primary responsibility for their own children's education, as a society we have entrusted education of the next generation to a “system” composed of teachers, administrators, and bureaucrats at the local, state, and national levels, and academics in the teacher colleges and universities. They determine what is taught, when it is taught, how it is taught, and the environment in which it is taught. We assume that the knowledge goals of 40 years ago are at least the minimum of what is still expected today, but the assumption would be wrong. I submit that changes to the education system over a period of decades have caused the results that we now find so unsatisfactory.

How the “system” has changed was brought into focus for me by an incident several years ago while serving as a school board member. Parents asked me why their seventh graders had spent four weeks in science class studying the soles of sneakers. Being a former science teacher, their question made me curious, too. I suspected the project somehow tied into the syllabus and requested a copy of the lesson plan, expecting a listing of the specific concepts the students would learn. What I received, however, contained no such list. Essentially, the plan said that the students would learn to design sneakers for fashion, form, fit, and function. The students' work looked like it came from a class in advertising and marketing rather than 7th grade science. Not sure where this fit into 7th grade science and thinking about the many concepts which could have been taught in those 4 weeks using traditional methods, I questioned the value of the project at a board meeting. The Director of Instruction informed me that this was an "award winning" (Science Teachers Assn. of NYS) project, and produced a checklist to show that the project met the state's new "higher" standards because the students were (paraphrasing from one of the standards) "using science to solve real-world problems.” This led to my discovery that the state no longer promulgated formal syllabi, which were very detailed descriptions, similar to a textbook, of exactly what concepts should be taught. Instead, the state encouraged teachers to use its new standards as guides in lesson preparation.

Review of the new standards made clear that they were performance standards rather than knowledge standards. Students would be assessed on their ability to do things in a certain way rather than on what they knew. “Knowledge” had been devalued in favor of “performance.”

The devaluation of knowledge and emphasis on performance can be traced to the wide-spread acceptance of the educational philosophies of psychologists John Dewey and Jean Piaget. These emphasize “learning by doing” and “child-centered” approaches (essentially, children pursuing their own interests) rather than the traditional approach of instructors directly delivering the knowledge that society expects the next generation to have. While the works of Dewey and Piaget provided important information on how the human mind acquires knowledge and develops intelligence, the practices that followed failed to address the function of the education system to transmit core knowledge within society. Over time, acceptance of these philosophies resulted in rejection of the authority of the teacher as the source of knowledge, rejection of rote learning, and rejection of standardized curricula. In their place, the system has substituted group activities, projects, students teaching each other, and community work, which reduce the teacher's role to a mere facilitator. It also introduced a plethora of specialized studies at increasingly earlier ages.

While “learning by doing” has its place, it is an inefficient method for transferring knowledge. Should an entire class period be devoted to experimentation with the hope that the students will re-invent the wheel, understand why it works, and avoid erroneous conclusions along the way, or should the correct concepts be presented and reinforced directly? Are the lessons "child-centered," or are they focused on those things society expects them to know? Which approaches are more likely to result in the greatest number of students learning what is intended or necessary? The constantly evolving and experimental teaching approaches are labor intensive and expensive, necessitating small classes and teacher assistants or aides to ensure that students stay on task and behave. With several thousand years of civilization behind us, if society has to depend on the next generation constructing for itself necessary knowledge through projects, group activities, and pursuing their own interests, the job simply will not get done.

Many students have difficulty attending to learning through activities. As each grade passes, the gap between the best and worst students widens, making a class increasingly difficult to teach. Some of these students get placed into Special Education, labeled as "disabled." Worse, they may be put on drugs such as Ritalin to make them attend. Others wind up in an “Alternative School,” labeled as “troublemakers” because they have become disruptive. Alternative school students are often three or four years behind their peers academically by the time they reach middle school. How could they be expected to attend to lessons that, to them, are being taught in a language that has become foreign? Two generations ago, Special Education was reserved for the truly handicapped: those who were hearing or visually impaired, or who had missing limbs. Structured and direct teaching prevented attention deficit disorder from becoming an issue. Alternative schools were unheard of. There was certainly no need to isolate such students and banish them to the BOCES “gulag” on Middle Settlement Road and have taxpayers pay through the nose to do it. Today the Special Ed population has virtually exploded and alternative education is commonplace.

Performance is often a function of maturity, natural ability, and cultural upbringing. Standards based on performance are somewhat subjective. When the grades are handed out, are the students being rated on what they have learned -- or sorted by who they are? How much heartache, frustration, life-impacting labels, and spending could be avoided by school systems taking the more traditional approach of direct instruction and assessment of knowledge?

Since internalizing core knowledge has been devalued, students have been trained to depend on others, on "experts," on the Internet, etc. for the knowledge that they may need. It has been many years since children from third grade up have been given calculators to do math, and now the Board of Regents wants to introduce them to kindergartners. Since math skills require years of practice to become second nature, is it any wonder why students have lost their abilities? Students who take the earth science Regents now are given an 8-page set of "standard reference tables" -- much of which used to be memorized by students 40 years ago. Since students cannot "look up" an unfamiliar word or concept in the middle of a lecture or conversation, they will miss the point of the discussion. While students may now be practiced in working together in groups, what can they contribute if they bring no knowledge to the table? While the Internet and "experts" can be helpful, how can one be sure if the information is "good" or applicable unless one has an adequate store of background knowledge to weigh the new information against? One cannot have “critical thinking” without core knowledge. By depriving students of core knowledge and fostering dependency on "things" that can be changed as easily as "find-and-replace" in Microsoft Word, we are setting them up to be manipulated by whomever is in charge of and controls the information flow. This threatens our way of life.

Children's education has become burdened with specialized (if not irrelevant) material at earlier and earlier ages that distracts and takes time away from the traditional material they are expected to know. It makes sense for students to take specialized courses in college and graduate school (because they are assumed to already have a solid foundation), and a handful of electives in high school (because they are assumed to have mastered the basics). However, having "magnet" schools at the elementary level or requiring high school students to pick the equivalent of a major on entering 9th grade (as in Utica's Millennium Project), dilutes the curriculum. When students at the "multicultural" magnet school study each other's customs, it is time away from drilling times tables, phonics, or spelling. People are well intentioned when they advocate providing students with laptops, robotics study, or requiring students to participate in community service or "school to work" programs, but what will be sacrificed for these specialized experiences? Is learning Microsoft Word more important than mastering the rules of grammar? Does it make sense to require students to learn the intricacies of a computer that will be obsolete in ten years?

Specialized studies at too early an age threaten creation of a modern Babel. Society's loss of a body of knowledge held in common is our loss of the lingua franca needed to communicate higher level ideas between generations, professions, and disciplines. What kind of future can we expect when our society has lost the ability to communicate with itself?

Students were once told that “Knowledge is Power” to encourage them to stay in school. Now we need to tell our educators to put knowledge back into schools, to make it worthwhile for students to stay there.

[This article was originally published in the September, 2009 "Utica Phoenix." Be sure to pick up the October Phoenix to read "The Ominous 4th Branch of Government," now available.]

Global Warming: The Truth Will Set You Free . . .

We have been asked to accept higher electricity prices (and will probably have to take more powerlines) in Upstate NY from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, supposedly to combat Global Warming. Now we will have to accept more economic impacts on a national level from "Cap-and-Trade" (though they are changing the name of this scheme to be distracting) again to combat Global Warming.

Every time you turn on the TV it seems, another "sign" is presented that Global Warming is upon us.  

But what you don't hear are stories like this one from World Climate Report:  Antarctic Ice Melt at Lowest Levels in Satellite Era.

It apparently is "too inconvenient" for the media to report that Antarctic Ice is melting (during the southern summer) at its lowest rate in almost 30 years.  If you mentally draw a line on the chart, you can see a downward trend over the time period.

Folks, you will find more skeptics among geologists because they have studied the "rock record" that spans eons of time. When present day data is placed in context, climate permutations seen over the last century are not that alarming.  

But the public has been alarmed . . . because the public has been given only the information that favors the POLITICAL views of those who would control the world's economy for their own self interest.    

The Truth will Set You Free.

This Region Is Done For . . .

New Hartford officials can't (or won't) figure out how to cut their budget without cutting services.

We've heard this same old song over and over again. Meanwhile, we can find money to keep a superfluous call center going, find money to extend water and sewer lines for particular developers, move to a bigger (but not better) airport that has no scheduled passenger service, pay millions for "job creation" while the total number of jobs dwindle. . . . . On and on and on . . .
The taxpayers get hit up for more . . . but have less to show for it.

This region is done for unless Drastic changes are made in the way we govern ourselves. NH is run only for the benefit of Developers and other "takers." Utica, meanwhile, has turned into a freak show. And the same stories are repeated multiple times with varying degrees of incompetence in all the other area towns and villages and at the county level.

We have far to much government -- far too many people sucking off the public teat -- and far too may people to have to keep an eye on. There needs to be (1) massive reorganization with consolidation and (2) removal of all financial incentives to those making the rules (ie all legislators, town, village and city councilmen etc).

If there were no pay and benefits for legislative types, many of the scum we have occupying office won't bother to run. Most of those left would be volunteering their time in the interest of their communities -- and will not likely be controlled by the "powers that be" because there will be no loss of pay/benefits to be threatened with.

Consolidation would reduce the number of slots that we would have to find volunteers to occupy, and reduce the number of legislative bodies for us (and the media) to watch. Consolidation should be aligned with our population centers -- Greater Utica, Greater Rome, and, perhaps Boonville. These centers would provide all the typically municipal services that are centered on those communities -- including water and sewer -- which require a dense population to maintain. County involvement in any of those services would devolve back to the enlarged municipalities. Towns would be eliminated and the county would take over with bare bones government to ensure public order.

Elected officials won't do this because their existence will be threatened. This has to be something that the people have to start talking about and demanding.

Without massive reductions in governmental costs, this region has not a prayer of "enticing" jobs to come in --- and not a prayer of surviving, much less growing.

800% Tax Increase in NYM!!??

You read that right:  

New Hartford Town Taxes in New York Mills are going up not the 54% reported by the O-D, but 800%.  

To those poor souls (and you WILL be poor after this is over) who live in the NH section of NYM, your town tax rate for next year, unless there are more cuts, will be $1.22 per thousand vs. the $0.15 per thousand you paid this year.

It's my understanding that Ms. Krupa will be holding public meetings on this soon.  

Frankly, this is one affected person who WILL NOT attend.  I've done my share of circulating petitions,  going to Town Board meetings, participating in advisory groups . . . and it has been a waste of time because when it comes time to vote, NYM residents vote for their friend or neighbor or party or the person whose ethnic ancestry matches theirs rather than on where the candidate stands on ISSUES.

Perhaps this is because NYM residents -- and residents of this entire area -- don't really understand the issues. This could be because they are too busy working trying to make ends meet -- or because they mistakenly rely on the Observer-Dispatch's framing of the issues. Whatever the reason, they need to wake up, make it their business to understand what is happening, and make themselves heard . . . en masse.  And for that to happen . . .

Things need to really hurt.

What the - - - -???!!!

Just when it started to look like New Hartford would take over Utica's place as regional laughingstock, we get this scene out of city hall . . .

Council Gone Wild

Was that really a knife that the councilwoman grabbed?

Want to know why the WHOLE REGION has gone to the dogs? Look no further than its elected officials.

The Chickens Come Home to Roost . . .

• 54 percent tax hike possible for New Hartford
• State auditors to review New Hartford's books

"As costs went up, the town had not made gradual increases in taxes to offset them, and had used savings instead."

What an outrageous thing for the Observer-Dispatch to suggest that "gradual increases" in taxes would have been appropriate.

With all the new construction taxable properties in New Hartford have increased. New Hartford now is believed to have the greatest amount of assessed valuation of any municipality in the region . . . believed to be even bigger than the City of Utica (but with 1/3 of Utica's population).

With assessed valuation significantly increasing while the population holds steady TAX RATES SHOULD BE GOING DOWN, NOT UP.

The New Hartford Police Department would buy one less new car, a savings of $23,000.

Big deal. But . . .

Police Chief Raymond Philo said he would fight to bring the police car back into the budget.

“You don’t want to diminish public safety in any community,” Philo said. “It’s the basis for quality of life and economic development. You don’t want to diminish it.”

While public safety is a primary function of government, Chief Philo is one of the biggest reasons why spending in New Hartford is out of control. When he appeared at a Town Board meeting a few months back to push for a new Town Courthouse, he commented that New Hartford should have a courthouse that "reflects the Town's affluence."

The entire Town Board and several employees and other officials reflect Chief Philo's arrogance ... not only on spending, but on other issues as well. Town government has been operated to benefit those who are "connected" and not the public at large. The "proof is in the pudding."

The public will welcome an Audit by the State Comptroller's office. . . Hopefully it will lead to an Investigation by the State Attorney General's office.