Only Mostly Dead

According to the Daily Star, the Kosmer Plan is done. To paraphrase Mark Twain, those reports of its demise may have been exaggerated.

Here's what happened. There was no plan to vote on, or officially launch, any part of the plan at the regular Board meeting on Wednesday. Since it is a time-sensitive plan, this would seriously delay any kind of implementation. I moved that we suspend the rules in order to consider a Resolution putting the plan into action. All but one Representative voted to suspend the rules (both the rule requiring any Resolutions to be available for review three days before the meeting, and the rule requiring any Resolution to come from a Board committee), which I took as a good sign. This meant that we were ready and willing to debate the plan.

The Resolution simply put the plan as written into action. Opposition seemed to focus on the difficulty of individual pieces of the plan – negotiating successfully with the CSEA, creating a poll that could produce reliable results, and then getting the state legislature to approve our 0.25% sales tax increase.

It's true that any one of these steps would be very difficult. That is not, in my opinion, a reason to abandon the effort altogether. And there are reasons to think that it might be successful.

The CSEA should be motivated to cooperate on a plan that would keep the Manor in public hands; they will no longer be able to represent any of the Manor staff once it's sold to a private operator. They have already given some indication of their willingness to talk about it.

Organizations do polls all the time, and we have many experts available to help us word the questions and design the system that would produce a reliable result.

And it is true that Senator Seward has said that he would not support – nor introduce into the Senate – a bill supporting our tax increase this session. But we've all heard of politicians who were 'for it before they were against it,' or vice-versa, and five months is a very long time in the political world. And it's also true that no sales tax increase has been approved by the legislature in five years. But it's also true that never before has a request for a sales tax increase been sent to Albany by a county which has renegotiated a CSEA contract and shown that a vast majority of its citizens support it. As John Kosmer said at the meeting, “That would be state-wide headlines.”

So it's difficult, but not impossible. The County Board, by a relatively slim margin, has rejected it. But the first step – renegotiating the CSEA contract – can be initiated by the union itself. If they are interested in pursing a plan like this, and can assemble a proposal in time – a proposal which would only go into effect if and when the County suspended its search for buyers – the plan could rise again, because at that point there would no doubt be renewed interest in the poll and the sales tax increase.

There's a difference between 'dead' and 'mostly dead.' The CSEA still has a chance to play Miracle Max, taking the initiative the County Board has chosen not to take.

The Kosmer Plan

John Kosmer, County Rep from the Town of Otsego, has asked for this message to be circulated widely, so in the interests of time, I'm going to drop it in here verbatim.

John is the author of what the Daily Star calls 'the Kosmer Plan,' a three-part process that, if completed in all its parts, may eliminate the pressing need to sell the Manor.  His plan will be discussed Wednesday at the BoR meeting.  Here's his message:

The Kosmer Path To Save The Manor framework will be discussed when Kay Stuligross reads the minutes from the last Manor committee meeting even though it is not on the agenda for the upcoming 10:00 AM Wednesday, February 6th Otsego County Board meeting.

The representatives of the board may also be asked something like: “If you are satisfied that Otsego County residents show overwhelming support for a .25 % sales tax increase from 8% to 8.25% to keep the Manor and CSEA is willing to bring personal costs in line with other comparable facilities in the region, would you support Otsego County resident’s overwhelming wishes for a sales tax increase?

If you have an opinion on whether Otsego County should try to keep the Manor by giving the Kosmer Path To Save The Manor framework an opportunity to succeed or you think we should privatize it, I urge you to do two things.

First, come to the Wednesday Otsego County Board meeting to express your opinion during privilege of the floor at the beginning of the meeting. We represent you. Your opinion may be influential to the actions of the board.

Second, contact your County representative before the Wednesday meeting to express your opinion. The County Reps contact information is below.

Of course, if you want to contact me, my e-mail is otsego11@gmail.com.  Let us know what you think. 

Next Step for the Manor

On Friday, the County Board interviewed Dr. Donald Pryor of the Center for Governmental Research (CGR), a consulting firm. According to their website,

"We work with government, nonprofit and business leaders who drive public policy action and organizational change. We inform and empower leaders by providing fact-based, objective research and analysis and by making recommendations that are achievable."

CGR responded to Otsego County's request for proposals regarding consulting assistance in solving the fiscal problem posed by the Manor subsidy, which will be around $5 million this year. CGR provided an extensive proposal outlining a process in this direction. You can read their proposal by going here, and scrolling down to the bottom (.pdf).

The Board spoke with Dr. Pryor for about two hours, in executive session (because we were considering a contract), and we were all impressed by the services offered. CGR has experience helping quite a number of NY counties make decisions about their nursing homes, and those decisions invovled a variety of solutions, not just selling outright. If we choose to sell, CGR can reach both a statewide and a nationwide market, and help us with any and all of the pieces of this very complex puzzle.

However, when the Board re-convened to vote on the contract with CGR, I voted against the resolution, as did a handful of other Representative on both sides of the aisle. This vote did not reflect any questions or concerns about CGR; I think they will do a fine job of assisting us in the job ahead. I voted 'nay' because I would have preferred to have CGR's proposal before the public, allow some debate, and to allow citizens to speak to the full board at the beginning of the next meeting, which occurs on February 6.

Make no mistake: what we did on Friday, and how we did it, was completely legal and conformed with all ethical guidelines. However, as I said at the meeting, I believe that we need to respect the balance between acting in a timely manner, and bringing the public – for whom we work – along with us carefully, with clear – and sometimes inconvenient – transparency. I'm not sure we got that completely right in September, and I'd like to make sure we work as hard as possible to achieve that balance in the future.

Why I Voted for the Budget

Sorry this is late; the budget vote was on December 5, and I've been pretty busy since then.

As Inigo Montoya has said: To sum up:

We went into the Board meeting with the OFA position and the Public Defender position cut. Most of us didn't want to keep it that way, but we had spent a lot of time and effort finding equivalent cuts elsewhere in the budget, with no success.

Kay Stuligross made the recommendation that we give the Management and Confidential workers (mostly, non-union county workers) a raise. They haven't had on in five years, and during that time we've cut their departments and made their jobs harder each year. To do that, she moved that we exceed the 2% tax cap. I seconded the motion.

In the discussion that followed, I tried to make it clear that the motion would only begin the process for choosing to exceed the tax cap. It wouldn't commit us to it, and it wouldn't even commit us to using the money for the raises – we could use it, instead (or in addition), to reinstate the two positions, or anything else we thought was important.

Exceeding the tax cap requires a local law, and that requires public notice and a public hearing. So if Kay's motion had passed, we would have ceased debate on the budget, scheduled a public hearing, and voted on it at the mid-month meeting. If it passed there, we would continue debate on the budget, but with the opportunity to spend over the 2% cap.

The motion gained the votes of the majority of Board members, but in a result reminicent of the 2000 Presidential election, the weighted votes of the minority won out and the motion failed.

So we were back to the budget we had started the morning with. After a bit more debate, the budget passed – not unanimously, but comfortably.

I voted for the budget even though it cut a position I feel strongly should be continued. Voting against the budget would not have re-instated that position. My vote was, for the most part, an acknowledgement of Rich Murphy and his Budget Committee, and Treasurer Dan Crowell. They worked tirelessly to create a budget we could live with and, despite the massive hole that the Manor subsidy started them out in, did an excellent job.

Now – anyone have a holocaust cloak?

By the way – the mid-month meeting (the first, I think, since January) is on Monday, December 17, at 1:30 in the Board chambers.

Stop It

Stop it.  Just stop it.  I'm so sick I could cry.  Did cry. 

Make it stop.

I don't care any more about your rights, gun owning members of the NRA, and I don't care about all the excuses you give me for having deadly weapons littering the landscape.  I don't care about your false sense of protection, or your target practice, or your collections, or your gun shows, or even your right to hunt.  I don't care.  None of that is protected in the Constitution.  None of it.  Look it up.  None of it is remotely connected to “a well regulated Militia.”  So stop all of it.

I actually don't care if you have guns or not.  You can have all the comforting armament you want.  I do care that you have, through organizations large and small, and most specifically the NRA, throughout American history, terrorized the political landscape to the extent that the conversation that would have saved all those five-year-olds could never happen.  I'm sorry, but it's your fault.  We can't talk about keeping guns out of the hands of psychotics because that might lead to black helicopters swooping in one night to confiscate those oversized handguns in our night tables that we don't even know how to use.  Geez.  Talk about drinking the kool-aid.

So stop, folks.  Just stop about “freedom”, stop about “rights”, stop about the second amendment (you're not in the National Guard, you know), stop about “a strong America.”  I don't care about that.  I care about Kindergarteners, and apparently we can't have both.  I choose the kids.

Every time this has happened we have mourned and we have shaken our heads and we have gone on and done nothing about it.  And therefore we have guaranteed that it will happen again.  The deaths in Connecticut are directly attributable to all the political activity designed to manage this kind of thing that didn't happen because the NRA made sure it didn't happen. 

So stop.  Stop sending money to the NRA.  Stop making excuses.  Stop keeping silent.  Start acting like we are all responsible for all our kids and nothing – certainly not the right for anyone to have as many guns as they want – is more important. 

Whose kids are next?  
  

Clear Heads and Detailed Data

At today's Board meeting, there was a discussion about Manor finances and the impact of the swiftly-changing regulatory and reimbursement landscape affecting nursing homes in New York State.

Finances first – the tax kind of finances. County Treasurer Dan Crowell laid out the cost to the taxpayer of retaining the Manor as a County facility: a 30% increase in the property tax for every Otsego County property-owner, over two years. And certainly increasing after that. If we wanted to raise the sales tax to give property-owners a little relief, each increase of 1/4 % in the sales tax would reduce the property tax increase by 10%. So, if we raised the sales tax by 1/2%, property taxes would only have to go up 10%. Dan cautioned us about the long regulatory road trip facing a county petitioning the State to raise its sales tax.

So, regardless of how you do the math, everyone in Otsego County will have to share the substantial cost of keeping the Manor in County hands.

Ed Marchi, Manor administrator, was at the meeting as well, and a number of Board members asked him to explain why it costs so much more for the County to run the Manor than it would for a private company. Some of the major points:

• Manor employees are represented by the CSEA, the public employees union, and they have negotiated a very strong salary and benefit package. Compared to private nursing home employees, their salaries are higher, and the opportunity for overtime is greater; they get time and a half for each of the nine County holidays, plus another day off sometime else.
• The County must contribute to the NYS public employee's retirement system; right now, that contribution is 20% of salary. A private company would not, of course, have this expense at all.
• Medicaid rates are set based on costs in our region; most nursing homes in this region are privately owned, with lower costs, so our reimbursement is lower than the actual costs, while for the private facilities, the reimbusement is much closer to, or at, their cost.

Beth Rosenthal, Represesentative for the northeast corner of the county, asked Ed what the nursing home environment would look like in five years. In a lengthy, eloquent, passionate but grim accounting, Ed laid out a picture that, as it turns out, will be the same whether the Manor is sold or not.

Briefly, the State is moving nursing homes toward a home-care model, a decentralized system which moves healthier residents to much smaller community-based residences. The nursing home facilities themselves will be used for only the most fragile residents. “When you walk into the Manor, you'll see IV drips everywhere.” The neighborhood system will not survive this evolution.

“We love the Manor. We've built something that is beautiful. But that beautiful thing will not last.”

Ed was clearly unhappy about this future, and so are we – all of us on the Board. But we need to meet this future with clear heads and detailed data. We'll continue to pursue this as we move forward.

A Question About the Manor

Can I ask a question about the Manor?

I have to admit, I'm a little bewildered by the strong feelings regarding keeping the Manor in County hands.  I understand that Countryside in Delaware County is a cautionary tale, but that's really apples and oranges.  And I understand that private companies have been making unpopular decisions regarding their nursing homes for financial reasons.

So here's my question:  Under the massive annual financial pressures created by the costs of the Manor, what will keep the County, in the future, from making unpopular decisions as well?

We've spent nearly two months now trying to trim over $5 million from next year's budget.  We've tried really hard not to kick too many cans down the road, but some cans had to be kicked.  Ancillary supports to servcies have fallen by the dozens, many never to return.  Next year, when the job starts again, where do we cut?  And the year after?  As long as the Manor is costing Otsego County $4+ million a year over revenues, and assuming that the taxpayers of Otsego County are not willing to endure the 30+ % tax increase required to pay for it outright, the level of care at the Manor will have to be on the table.  As long as very existence of the Sheriff's patrol and senior meals is on the table, as long as the quality of road maintenance and the caseload of Social Service caseworkers are on the table, the quality of care at the Manor will have to be on the table, as well.  And until the management and confidential staff throughout the county get a raise (it's been five years, and counting), everything's on the table.

I think the opponents of privatization have created a false dichotomy:  it's not a case of greedy private operators vs. a rosy, unaltered future with the County.  Both will be struggling with finances, and with paying for an expensive, complex institution in an unpredictable funding environment.  Each entity may respond differently, but neither can guarantee anything.

 

Democracy at Foothills

 An enormous number of us came out to have fun on Wednesday night - the Foothills main stage auditorium seats over 600, and they were bringing in more chairs by the dozen. 

I spoke early, and then left to attend the Schreibman/Gibson debate at SUCO (which is a different story), so I can't tell you how it went after that .  The Star has summarized things.  Here's my testimony:

Good evening.  My name is Gary Koutnik, and I am a member of the Otsego County Board of Representatives.  I represent the 11th District, just a stone's throw from here, and I would like to thank you for scheduling a hearing here in Otsego County.

I represent an urban, residential area - the First and Second Wards in the City of Oneonta.  We're unlikely to have a pipeline routed through our district, and we're unlikely to find a drilling pad appear in someone's backyard.  But last fall, when I visited every house in my district and spoke withmany of my constituents, I found a large majority who had grave concerns about the methane industry coming to Otsego County.  And as a County Representative, I must act in the best interests of the County as a whole, as well.

This is a hearing about the Constitution Pipeline, I know, not about fracking per se.  However, it would be dangerous to dismiss the argument that they are closely linked.  You need look no further than a Williams press release, dated March of the year, in which Alan Armstrong, the CEO, said this about the pipeline:

Our goal is to be the leading gathering, processing and transportation solution provider for producers in the Marcellus Shale.

We're putting together the kind of infrastructure that makes drilling in the Marcellus even more desirable for producers because we provide large-scale infrastructure solutions that connect producers' natural gas and natural gas liquids to the best markets.

We cannot separate the pipeline and fracking in the Southern Tier and the northern Catskills.  Others have spoken, and will speak, about this natural connection, in more detail.  However, throughout it all, please remember the freely-expressed, public intent of the pipeline company, when you listen to those who tell us there is no connection.  The evidence suggests that this position is either naive or disingenuous. 

Thank you again for scheduling a hearing in Otsego County.

So democracy progresses.  It was loud, messy, uncomfortable and exuberant - and that was just while I was there.  It was we the people, doing our best to act in the best interests of everyone.  It was wonderful to be a part of it.  And FERC now has a very clear idea of what is on the minds of the folks in this part of the country.

One More Fun Thing To Do Next Week

By now, just about everyone has heard about the controversy surrounding the Constitution Pipeline, and alternate Route M, which will send the pipeline through Otsego County, essentially along or near I-88.  At its last meeting, the Board of Representatives - after a three-hour public comment period - approved a resolution encouraging the use of Route M.  The vote was not unanimous:  four of us voted against it (and one was absent).  My concern was focused on the use of the pipeline as transport infrastructure for local fracking operations sometime in the future.  My concerns were roused by the fact that the CEO of the pipeline company pretty much said that that was its purpose.  You can read, and decide for yourself, here.  

None of the hearings conducted by the Federal regulatory agency regarding the pipline were held in Otsego County, and the comment period was, initially, closed on October 9 (thus the hasty Board vote).  One of the nice developments after the Board vote was that the comment period was extended, and a hearing in Otsego County was scheduled for Wednesday, October 24, at 7PM at Foothills.  This is an important issue and essential, I think, in the fight against hydrofracking.  Come and show your concern, speak if you'd like, or bring a written comment.  Let me know if you need more information.

Two Fun Things To Do Next Week

Well, it depends on your definition of 'fun.'   As I mentioned here last week, budget time is among us, and we have to trim down the requests by a whole lot to get to 'balanced.'  Most of the committees have done most of their detailed investigation and cutting by now.  One of my committees - Health and Education - spend a good deal of time talking about the senior meals program through the Office for the Aging.  It's not a mandated program - the law doesn't require that it continue - and, overall, it costs abvout $800,000. The law does prohibit charging or means-testing participants, regardless of ability to pay.  There are center meals, provided in public places (Nader Towers and Elm Park Church in the southern part of the county), and there are home-delivered meals.  More frozen meals are being delivered to outlying sections of the county, in order to reduce the number of trips per week, so that savings has already been accomplished.  So how do we address this?  Should it be eliminated entirely? Close one or more centers?  Freeze more - or all - meals and deliver only once a week?  This is just one program in one Department; these kinds of discussions are going on all over the County.

The Two Fun Things To Do involve observing this process yourself.  The Administration Committee, renamed the Budget Committee for this process, takes the Budget as it stands after the Commmittees have done their best, and interviews Department heads, looking for more cuts.  The Budget Committee will meet at 9:15 AM at the County Office Building on Monday, October 22, and Wednesday, October 24.  The meetings are open to the public but, like Board meetings, the public can observe but not participate in the process.  I don't know for sure which Departments are scheduled for which day, but if you are interested, you can call the Clerk of the Board's office and ask.  I'll be there Monday, observing as well.  I think it's important that we all know what goes into this sausage of a Budget.