Parting shots
Myers says she’s running for reelection because she has “more work to do.”
She said the job has been hard on her family and she wasn’t sure she’d run for another term. She doesn’t see it as a long-term gig.
She first ran because of taxes. She and her husband bought an old Victorian on the Esopus and fixed it up, and found their assessment tripled. They grieved the assessment and found town government wasn’t responsive.
“I’m shoulder to shoulder with the people that live in our community,” she said. “My husband lost his job last January. I acutely understand the pressure that families are under. It hit our own family.”
Though she can talk at length about all local events, dedicated volunteers and Saugerties’ unique attributes—and uses her supervisor’s report at the meetings to do just that—it’s still taxes that motivates her.
She can give a different impression. One example: continued reference to $400,000 in cuts proposed during the 2013 budget process (conducted in the fall of 2012). Much of that was closing the transfer station; the board instead decided to raise fees, which Myers supports. Personnel cuts which have since been made by not replacing workers are also part of that number.
If reelected, she’ll need to soften up a bit. Even if both sides are guilty, it’s up to the supervisor to take the lead. She doesn’t like this comparison, but it’s reminiscent of President Obama’s struggles with the Republicans. The solution is the same: bury the hatchet, initiate dialogue, build trust, let them save face. After all, they still get to vote, whether they’re working with you or not. Why not reach out?
Ciarlante wants to “take the power back.” Her scrutiny of grants is interesting. It’s true that a reliance on grants, now common to all small towns, undermines self-rule; mainly because, thanks to rising health care and retirement costs and aging infrastructure, it’s now so expensive to keep a town going week-in, week-out there’s not much room to do anything that costs money. And how much can you really do as a town government if you’re not spending money? Well, you can cut what you already spend. Or try to– much of it is mandated or essential. A local government that can’t do very much is a local government that’s increasingly irrelevant.
We share Ciarlante’s interest in transparency. Direct notification for all meetings, special meetings for expenditures, leaving public hearings open and encouraging comment: all of this is good for local democracy. But every candidate preaches more transparency than they can deliver. It’s not for any nefarious reason. Usually, the only people really looking for easy access to this information (other than the newspaper) are the political opposition in the run up to an election. Once the fox is in the henhouse, and it’s the longest possible time before the next election, suddenly nobody’s turning up at meetings or FOILing documents, and there’s other work that needs doing…
Ciarlante’s outside-the-box thinking is welcome. If elected, she’ll have to be more pragmatic. The town can voice its opposition to affordable housing but it can’t really block it without opening itself up to a lawsuit. She needs to be more precise with some of her references as well. There have been numerous instances of her telling us such-and-such document says something, and it turns out to be close but not correct. A town supervisor needs to be sure; she can’t rely on secondhand information.
Helsmoortel, always in a suit, a former Rotary president, really wants to get back to his job: making connections. He’s not particularly political. He doesn’t have any talking points. As in years past, he held just one fundraiser at Land & Sea and is saving his campaigning and most of his signs for the home stretch. “My biggest fear at election time are lies,” he says. Earlier this year he said he didn’t defend himself in 2011 like he should have, and vowed to be more diligent this year. He hasn’t though. Maybe he hasn’t had to, with the Republicans battling it out among themselves.
His message is simple: let me pick up where I left off. He doesn’t feel as though any adjustment in his governing philosophy is necessary. His message has changed somewhat; he’s stressing a need to return to “civility” and “respect” in town government. We support that whole-heartedly.
He said there’s been a history of long-term incumbents losing, then being brought back immediately in the next election when the electorate realizes “the grass might not have been greener.”
We hope that, if elected, he does take some lesson from the last two years. Republicans made a good point: the board was a little complacent. It was self-assured. No one on the inside was questioning things. That doesn’t mean being confrontational– but it does mean spending some time examining old assumptions and bringing your findings to colleagues and the public. As Myers points out, sometimes this scrutiny reveals the old way was better. Citizens just want to see evidence this self-examination is occurring.
Candidates often say they want to run government “like a business.” What they really mean is “like a business that’s barely breaking even.” If a business is doing well, long-standing if inefficient arrangements are allowed to stand. Why make waves? But if solvency is on the line, those kinds of things get addressed. We need a town government that shows respect and provides incentives for skilled and hardworking department heads and workers, but is willing to seek out inequity, inefficiency and excess and address it. That will be the job of the next town supervisor.
