New plan mirrors old strategy for New Paltz government reorganization

Dissolving the Village of New Paltz is no longer the option residents will consider in the voting booth this November. After reviewing the study document produced by consultants, Mayor Tim Rogers announced at the May 14 board meeting that instead they will again be looking at consolidation. Not only will this open up the vote to all town residents instead of just those also living in the village, it will mean that the vote will be pushed back a year. 

As Rogers explained, the mechanism of dissolution by its nature left decisions on the fate of staff members up in the air until after the votes were counted, an uncertainty that “make[s] staff a bit nervous.” In addition, rejiggering for consolidation would ensure that all town residents have a say, which is why that approach was the first proposed. 

The reason for the pivot from consolidating the two governments to simply eliminating the smaller was due to the mayor’s belief that town council members had other priorities, and were not especially interested in this process. However, either approach would require that information be provided by a variety of town employees in order for the hired consultant to draft a plan for how to turn village assets and jobs into town assets and jobs. It’s that plan that voters would have been deciding on. Rogers has asserted at the March 6 town council meeting that the town comptroller, Jean Gallucci, was unresponsive to requests to schedule a meeting with the consultants. 

Supervisor Amanda Gotto was asked this question via email on March 21: “Has the comptroller made arrangements to sit down the representatives of the Laberge group as other town officials have to answer questions about the town’s financial statements, and if not, when do you anticipate that occurring?” 

Gotto replied later that day, “Why are you saying the comptroller has not answered Laberge questions? The comptroller has provided the information that Laberge asked for, supplying the employee handbook, union contracts and salary rates.” 

The response email, also on March 21, included this clarification: “My question about lack of cooperation is based on what Mayor Rogers said during public comment on March 6, singling out the comptroller’s office as being less than forthcoming. When I spoke with the mayor Tuesday, I was told that when information is shared by town employees, it often requires follow-up questions for clarity, that ‘our requests for a meeting with the comptroller have been ignored, and when we have asked for information, we haven’t received everything we’ve needed.’ 

“On the other hand, the mayor says that all other department heads have been extremely helpful, especially the two elected ones. 

“That’s why I ask if the comptroller has agreed to schedule a meeting yet, the claim that this has not occurred.” 

No response has yet been received to clarify the comptroller’s intentions. 

Rogers is seeking to replace Gotto as supervisor, which is still a question which will be on the ballot in November.