A Fine Morning

Here are some thoughts from "The Original Gadfly" on what the future should hold for the new majority.


            -----  By Ray Mooney

An Open Letter to Ms. Matters, Ms. DiMartino and Supervisor Langley  

You did not ask, and you may not care, but I do so here goes: 

·         Don’t gloat over your victory. Be gracious. Work to unite the town – not drive people further apart.

·         Do an immediate deep, even forensic audit. You have to know the true state of the town’s finances from the very get go. Check to see if politically connected citizens are even paying their taxes. It is remarkably easy to hide that.

·         Invite/request that the OSC come back and dig into specific areas of concern from the last audit. Report openly and to the public on any concerns and corrective actions required.

·         Purchase an up to date version of today’s best accounting software. Recognize that, for the moment, it will be “garbage in; garbage out” but you have to start somewhere to improve the town’s accounting practices and systems.

·         Open up town board meetings, be more transparent. Share information without the need for FOILs. When in doubt share – don’t hide. If a town board agenda does not provide time for full public participation schedule a second, separate meeting for just public comment.

·         Negotiate collective bargaining agreements for the good of the town’s taxpayers not to curry favor with employees and their unions. Look to the long term. How will we afford health care and staggering pension expenses down the road?

·         Bruen is totally and completely out of control. Make an audit a condition in the contract and create a corrective plan. Set standards and hold the Buren leadership accountable.  You might even consider putting the contract out to bid.  And as OSC recommended, move the fiscal activity into the Town Comptroller's Office.

·         Retain Dave Van Wormer as DPW Commissioner. He is the best, by far, of the last three people to hold that position.   You will need Dave’s knowledge and support to reduce overtime and eliminate DPW excess positions. Use his expertise.  You might want to consider making the Highway Commissioner position elective as the law allows. 

·         Appoint a real accountant with an advanced understanding of modern accounting practices and up to date accounting software to the Comptroller’s position. If Pete Stenson is that person retain him.

·         Eliminate the practice of burning up taxpayer dollars at the end of the year for absolutely nothing  in a “use it or lose” way to maintain budgets for things like DPW overtime.

·         Resist the urge to appoint your political cronies. Your political hacks will not be one darn bit an improvement over their political hacks. That applies especially to your party chairperson, by the way.

·         Install computer monitoring software on all the town’s computers. It is high time to eliminate selling on eBay and surfing the Internet as valid things to do on the taxpayer’s dime while at work.

·         Set goals for all the town’s department heads.

Ø      For the DPW plan to reduce headcount by 2 to 4 positions by seniority. Set a goal of reducing overtime in the DPW by 10%.

Ø      For the PD plan to reduce headcount by 2 positions. Set a goal of reducing overtime in the PD by 15%.

·         Eliminate positions:

Ø      Deputy PD Chief. This was a purely political appointment to award a party loyalist. Eliminate it.

Ø      Automate the collection of taxes. It is soon to be 2014 for goodness sake. In automating the collection of taxes eliminate the two deputy tax collector positions.  The law allows for the tax collector position to be appointed and not elected.

Ø      Eliminate the town attorney position. Almost all serious legal work is farmed out to legal specialists so the position,  a political appointment anyway, can easily be eliminated.

Ø      Eliminate one or both deputy building inspector positions. Might be a good place to begin a work-load analysis.

Ø      Eliminate the town attorney secretary position.

Ø      Eliminate the data collector position.

·         At the January Town Board meeting pass the original, unrevised Code of Ethics.

·         Re-appoint Jack Conway to the Ethics Board.

·         Appoint serious people to the Ethics Board and the Citizens Fiscal Advisory Committee (CFAC)

·         Have the CFAC support, monitor and report publicly on the overtime and headcount reduction goals for the DPW and the PD.

·         Clean up town hall. It looks terrible and gives an equally bad first impression.

·         Re-evaluate the $14 million waste treatment plant expansion project. It makes no sense to put so much debt on taxpayers when the county option is so viable, simple and inexpensive.

·         Explore every opportunity to consolidate services. Evaluate the dispatcher function as a starting point.  It seems like a duplication of expense to have town employees doing what can equally and easily and less expensively be done through the county’s services.

·         Ask for assistance and help. Promote volunteerism. There are dozens of people, with all kinds of expertise ready and willing to support positive change in East Greenbush. Access those available resources.

Congratulations on your success.  We all look forward to your driving positive change and fulfilling your campaign promises.

Signed,

The Original Gadfly

The Devil We Know or the Devil We Don't Know???

Here are some perspectives on the election and the candidates from the Gadfly and guests to stimulate some thinking and commenting as we approach "the Decision" on Tuesday.

 Campaign 2013:

Like most election campaigns, I’m glad this one is almost over.  Although there has been a good deal of substantive discussion we have also seen personal attacks and unsubstantiated rumors about candidates and, more disturbingly, their families and friends.  But such is politics here in East Greenbush.  We have four candidates for two seats: if the republicans win both seats they will take the majority on the town board whereas the democrats only need one to maintain their current advantage.  The winners will take the places of Ginny O’Brien and Rick Matters, who in terms of tenure and contribution are the two most distinguished members of the current board.

The two primary sources for direct information about the campaigns have been mailings and articles in the Advertiser.  The republicans advanced proposals for fixing the financial problems facing the town while the democrats stressed the qualifications of their candidates.  Both were intelligent strategies as republicans used financial distress as the basis of their criticism of the current regime and democrats sought to underplay our problems and shift the focus from their role in creating the financial crisis to the positive qualities of the two candidates.  Each strategy brought out the best in the candidates – Mary Ann Matters and Deb DiMartino appear to have a number of good ideas for change, Mike Bottillo and Cheryl Vallee appear to be well qualified to sit on the board.  This is only a matter of emphasis as the republican candidates also seem qualified and the democratic candidates had some good ideas, especially in their focus on rejuvenating the 9 & 20 corridor.

The election also brought out the best in our town government.  In a rush to pre-empt issues they knew could hurt them during the campaign, the democratic majority passed a new Code of Ethics, approved funding for audits, and offered a plan for improving the fiscal condition of our town government.  The plan was slight and insufficient but its appearance did make me wish we had an election every six months since campaign season seems to be the only time the interests of taxpayers take center stage in the workings of our local government.  In fairness, the republicans deserve as much credit for these accomplishments as the democrats because there was little indication any of these things would have been done without having first been raised as campaign issues.   The democrats are asking for a chance to continue what they see as an upward trend in fiscal responsibility; the republicans are asking for a chance to see what Supervisor Keith Langley can accomplish with a board majority and a new direction in financial planning. 

My concern is that all of this is campaign blarney and what both sides really want is another chance to feed at the public trough.  So when deciding how to vote it’s also important to consider what appointments will be made in key positions.  The best argument for voting republican is that the democrats have run our finances into the ground and taking a chance on change is likely to yield at least some improvement.  In this case, the devil you don’t know is better than the one you do.  There will be a race for Supervisor in two years and some people want to see what Supervisor Langley can do with a majority before deciding to re-elect him.  The best argument for voting democrat is that the current majority has done some good work – the roundabouts, the plans for and clean-up of Hampton Manor Lake, the funding for the wastewater treatment upgrade – and their recent appointments have been good ones – Meghan Webster as director of planning, and Angelina Cadena and Pete Stenson as Comptrollers.  Dave Van Wormer has done a good job at DPW.  We can only speculate on who the republicans will appoint but if they win those choices will be critical.  For me the choice comes down to which candidates will show the most independence when faced with a choice between their party’s interests and those of the taxpayers.  We need strong-minded, independent representatives and we need them now.  We also need a town board that acknowledges our problems and resolves to take firm action to address them even if it proves unpopular with their base.  But however you come down on these issues, make sure your voice is heard on Tuesday.

                                                                                 -------  Jack Conway 

This time around:
 

I’m recalling the famous rhetorical question from Jeremiah 13 – “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots?”  I’m also recalling the first act of the current majority after Mr. Langley was elected, but had not yet taken office.  You might recall that they “whacked” his salary in a deliberate attempt at intimidation.  Politics is not bean-bags in East Greenbush.  But then Mr. Langley did not understand and therefore could not heed good solid advice about how to use a minority position to his advantage and build a record for his people to run on. 

The current majority has not been a good steward of its charge.  The rush to produce a “record” at the last Board meeting was disingenuous.  East Greenbush government has been dragged kicking and screaming toward responsibility.  And those who have done the dragging are private citizens. 

So what about the alternative, Mr. DeFruscio’s “Republicans?”  (Is any candidate a Republican or Democrat this time around?)  I am concerned that there is a real possibility for the “same old same old” if the majority changes.  I remember the “it’s my turn” speech at a Board meeting some months ago.  That was not comforting.  So there is a bit of a quandary for us.  But we’ve seen the Dem leopard actually at “work,” and that’s the reason I think I’ll support a regime change this time around.

Hope for East Greenbush is going to be in independence from the Party Machines and their respective “hangers-on” and loyalty to the interests of the taxpayer.  Mr. Langley deserves a chance to show what his majority can do in the next two years.  If he doesn’t, and we have more of the same – only with a Republican brand – it will be a pretty good sign that we need a Third Party effort here in EG.  A government of, by and for the people – not the Party. 

                                                                                    ------ Don Johnson        


Thoughts on this year's election......

All my thoughts on this year's election for Town Board are covered in used coffee grounds, in my garbage can. That's where all the campaign literature goes. My recollection tells me it's all Republican this year, and full of typical empty blather about lower taxes and greater fiscal restraint. And not just at the Town level either, but also at the County legislature and a County judgeship opening. I can honestly say I have not received a single flyer or mailer from Town or County Democrats. Maybe because I'm a registered Democrat and they think they already have my vote? Why? Look at what they've done to us. Disregarding the misplaced attempts at bipartisanship voting shown by the Town Board Minority over the last two years, the fact is that the Democratic Majority could have passed every Resolution on their own 3-2 strength anyway. 5-0 just gets you there faster. And where is "there?" Junk Bond status, deep Town debt and documented (by outside agencies, including the State) Town mismanagement, improper handling of infrastructure assets like the Wastewater Treatment Plant, and the Town Park, unwillingness to update the Town Ethics Law, unwise hiring decisions (to include a contempt for even basic compliance with mandatory Civil Service law) and borderline illegal payments to people who shouldn't have been paid. We still don't have finished audits from three years ago because the Democratic-controlled books were so messed up that outside auditors, including the State, cannot yet make sense of the numbers. We had to hire a second set of auditors, paid for by you, just to make some sense of what the Democratic-controlled Town Hall was doing with the money. 

All in the past, yes, but what have we seen to indicate that this Chicago-style approach to governing would not simply continue under another Democratic regime? Nothing. Recent Democratic Advertiser pieces have been thuggish in tone, completely in keeping with tradition. And, they run an anonymous blog that no one will take credit for, a blog that stoops to new levels of low in attacking not just other politicians (which is expected, and part of the game), but also taxpayers who voice an opposing opinion, and even worse, their families and friends, people not even involved! This is reprehensible, and I have yet to hear anyone in the Democratic leadership call for it to stop. You may not like what you read here on this Gadfly blog because it too accepts anonymous comments, but you almost always know who wrote the original thread posts and you know who the moderator is! 

But most telling for me is a quick analysis of the last two years of Board Meetings. If you go to the Town's website you'll find the minutes of the meetings, 10 per page. When you get 6 meetings down on the 4th page you will be at the 1/2/12 Organizational Meeting, the 1st meeting with Langley, Matters, O'Brien, Mangold and Malone on the Board. There have been 36 meetings for these folks. That's 180 potential "I showed-up-to-vote" opportunities. They do, after all, get $10,000 a year to do this stuff. Running down the list you see the following: Langley missed 1 meeting out of 180. That's 2%. Matters missed 4 meetings, or 11%. O'Brien missed 2 meetings, or 5%. Malone missed 9 meetings, or 25%. That's a lot, no matter how you slice it. And Mangold, like Matters, missed 4 meetings. If you run the numbers by party affiliation, the Democrats missed 15 of their 108 possible meeting slots. 14% of the time they didn't show up. Republican-affiliated members ( non-Democrats, if that's easier) missed 5 of their 72 available meeting slots, or 7%. Do the math. The Democratic leadership in this town takes it's meeting responsibilities only half as seriously as the non-Democrats. I think I prefer the party that shows up more.
                                                                               --------- Dwight Jenkins

Code of Ethics Passed by Town Board - Jack Conway

Last night the Town Board passed a new Code of Ethics by a vote of 5-0. It includes a financial disclosure requirement that is reasonable and, if correctly monitored, will protect residents from most financial conflicts of interest.  The new Code includes much of what was in the version drafted by the original Board of Ethics but the sections on nepotism and post-employment restrictions have been watered down to the point that there is little or no protection in those areas.  All in all, though, it is a Code well worth having and the board should be congratulated for making it the law of the town.  Improvements will have to be made over time but it's a very good start

It took three years to get this Code passed but as the German sociologist Max Weber said "Politics is slow boring in hard wood."  It probably shouldn't have taken this long but it was worth the wait to get a Code that could be backed by the full board.  The original members of the Board of Ethics - Joe Slater, David Youmans, Jim Breig and Justine Spada - did a great job and deserve our gratitude.  The members of the public who attended meetings and made invaluable suggestions - Ray Mooney, Pete Stenson, Eileen Grant, Ed Gilbert, Tom Grant and others - also deserve a vote of thanks.  Thanks also to all the bloggers who remained concerned about this issue and helped keep it in the public eye.  Thanks to the Gadfly for printing all of my ravings about the Code.

Rick Matters and Keith Langley supported the draft prepared by the Board of Ethics from the start and managed to put that version into the public record, a move that kept the issue alive and before the public.  Their decision to make it a central issue in this Fall's campaign created pressure that helped the final Code become law.  Ginny O'Brien, Sue Mangold and Phil Malone worked with Joe Liccardi to produce the version that is now law.  Their revisions were carefully considered and respectful of the original draft in most respects.  On a personal note I owe Ginny O'Brien a debt of gratitude for appointing me to the Board of Ethics and then giving me the space to work independently and to the best of my ability.  Last night was her last town board meeting after twenty-five years of public service.  Since she brought me into the process I was glad she was there to cast a 'yes.'  I wish her all the best.  Slan go foill Ginny.

How about some opinions on last night's Board meeting. From what I hear, I'll ask you to keep it clean.

The previous post has become a comment on the previous thread.

The 2014 Tentative Budget by Dwight Jenkins

In case you haven't reviewed the Supervisor's Tentative Budget yet, here is the link to it: http://eastgreenbush.org/downloads/cat_view/43-comptroller

Now that you've had a chance to look at it, I'm just wondering if any of the following items jumped out at you or made you wonder. This is not an exhaustive list, feel free to chime in with your own observations. (Water and Sewer funds have not been reviewed.) Maybe one of the readers will be able to fill in some of the gaps, because the budget is important. It looks like the Supervisor has tentatively found a way to keep things moving in Town without making us pay more. Of course, there are a number of steps that still remain in the process before the budget goes from Tentative to Actual, and that's why this is the time to begin talking about it. When it comes time for the Public Hearing and the election you want to be as informed as possible. Hopefully this post is a small part of that preparation. In no particular order:

There's a separate expense line this year called "Library-2012 Arrears" for $40,160.  Arrears for what? 

The Bruen (East Greenbush Ambulance) tax levy remains the same as last year at $671,913. Estimated revenue is $400K, also the same as last year, but this is $330K DOWN from the previous 2 years, and the tax levy is about $330K more than in those previous two years. Why? Bruen revenues are basically down 50% while tax levies are up 50%. What changed in 2 years?  

And why doesn't Bruen provide the same level of detailed information that the rest of the budget provides? At least with the library you can go to their outdated web site of proposed budgets  (the last budget info on the site is the "proposed" 2013 budget, produced in September 2012) and see some potentially important things. You get nothing from Bruen except a page at the end of the tentative budget showing no expenditures except Contractual Expenses (which are up $160K from 2012), Workers Comp and LOSAP retirement expenses. There must be more. And look at Bruen's Revenue: their property tax revenue went up $196,000 from 2012, and ambulance charges more than doubled in that time, from $191K to $400K. Notice also that 2012 final and 2013 projected lines show no LOSAP expenses. Why? Why? And why?
  
General Fund Expenditures:  Independent auditing is still budgeted even though they haven't produced a damn thing yet; the Tax Collector Personal Salary line shows the greatest increase of all the Town Hall positions: up about 7 or 8 % to $56,300 even though the salary of the tax collector is supposed to be $56,800. Where's the other $500 going?  And what has the position acquired in terms of duties to justify such a large increase?

The Attorney salary line is down $20K while the Contractual Expense line is up $11.7K. Why?

The Data Processing salary line is down $3K but Contractual Expenses are up $20K. Why?
  
Judgment and Claims CE (hired attorneys?) went from $92K in 2012 to a projected $23.00 (yes, $23.00) this year, but projected to be $20,000K next year. Why?

We have a Contingency fund of $110,00 this year- none last year or 2012. That's good.
You never know what life is going to throw at you.


Association of Towns meeting expenses will be cut by 2/3 if the Supervisor has his way, from $5.5K to $2K.


Assessor salary and Contractual Expenses lines both show decreases, with CE down by $65K. Why?

Parks/Playground Salaries and CE consume more than $200K a year. Seriously?

Youth Programs eat up $90K a year.  Are we getting a good return on this? Are we changing lives? Maybe yes, maybe no, but it's a lot of money and the question needs to be asked.

Beautification of the Town and Band concerts get only $1,000. Veterans get $3K and the elderly get $4,500. Given the above Parks/Recreation/Youth expenditures, these 3 pittances stand out as way different. A lot.

Planning Dept. Contractual Expenses are massively down this year (to $0) from last year's $95K and projected to be only $34K next year. Why?


State Retirement is up from $149K last year to almost $484 next year. Fire and Police Retirement similarly go from $181K last year to $582K next year. Social Security contributions, a measure of wage increases or an increase in the numbers of employees, have remained fairly steady, hovering around $300K. So why the big increases in the other things?


Health Insurance Longevity Buy-Out is cut in half next year, down $47K.


Bond Anticipation Payments (debt) are dramatically down this year and next, from $108K to $20K. Why?

The Total salary line is fairly steady at about $4 million, while benefits are up by about $700,000.

Total Revenues are down $130,000 from last year, and more than $600,000 from 2012. It seems we are stagnating, maybe even contracting.  Safety inspection fees are down by half, Planning Board fees (for filings ) are down by 25%. In a growing economy these numbers would be going up, not down.

Scrap metal sales are down about 50% both this year and next. People might be doing their own scrapping to make a few bucks.  Doubtful that scrap price per ton is down that much...but maybe. Worth mentioning, given the Town's sketchy scrap past.


County sales tax revenue is projected to be up $100K next year. This is a good thing. 

Finally, on the bottom line of the Revenue page: we showed a net surplus of $937,775 in 2012, and we are projecting an even bigger surplus of $1.1 million this year, with next year slated to be $0. So where's the extra money been going for the last two years? Debt payments are down, a lot. Go back and look at previous years' General Fund surpluses: $431K in 2009; $113K in 2010; $153K in 2011; $937K in 2012, with this year slated to be even bigger. How is this possible? And don't forget, 2012 was the last year of the "State Aid" handout: $847,675 that year! This year it was only $6,048 and next year nothing. Somehow this tentative budget absorbs that blow and comes out smelling like a rose. And we've been collecting more than we're spending by what, 15% of our General Fund levies both this year and last, yet we're considered near bankruptcy (by one guy) and still a junk bond credit risk (by lots of guys) ? Something isn't adding up.

Here's where you help add to the questions, or add to the clarity of the 2014 Tentative Budget:

The Courage to Govern II

FROM THE TROY RECORD
Wednesday, September 18, 2013

US Prosecutor Says NY Corruption 'Rampant'
By Jake Pearson and Michael Gormley
The Associated Press

NEW YORK- U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara told a new state commission Tuesday that corruption in New York politics has created a "show-me-the-money culture" that's permeating state and local officials, both Democrats and Republicans, and has reached intolerable proportions.

"Public corruption, based on all evidence, appears rampant," Bharara told The Commission To Investigate Public Corruption  at its first public hearing. "And the ranks of those convicted in office have swelled to absolutely unacceptable levels." .... U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch testified about "self-interest and double-dealing" in New York politics. She called for "truly transparent financial disclosure" by politicians to ward off conflicts of interest. She also called on honest politicians to report misconduct by colleagues. "I do think there is room for public officials who see this wrongdoing and who hear these conversations to step up," she said.
________________________________________________________

The article continues, but we can chew on just the first two paragraphs for a while because they apply so directly to East Greenbush. As you've read in these pages many times: If you don't nail it you license it. The U.S. Attorney notes that BOTH state parties are actively and willfully corrupt, with that corruption running down like dirty water into the surrounding cities, towns, and villages. Any surprises? Shouldn't be. We've seen years of corruption at every level of Town life exposed in these pages and others. Anything changed? Maybe some. Not enough. Notice the way Ms. Lynch called for  transparent financial disclosure among politicians. We've had an Ethics Law stalled for over a year on  this very issue, and here we have a U.S. Attorney telling us exactly what we already knew but didn't have the courage to do.

Notice also the call for "honest politicians" (if they exist) to step up and report suspected violations. Over the last several years the citizens of East Greenbush have pointed out countless examples of possible corruption and conflict of interest by the Majority party. (Both sides have held a majority in that time, though the Democrats have had the honor for most of it.) What has the Minority done with this power? Almost nothing. There was one notable exception when the Democrat Minority actually brought a case to court over what they perceived to be wrong: the infamous "Double-Dipper" case. Regardless of the merits, the Minority at that time showed enough courage to spend the money and the political capital to go out on a limb for what they thought to be right. They won, and eventually won their Majority back as a result. But usually the Minority has left it to ordinary taxpayers to pursue honest government and political accountability on their own. In many cases the Minority has even gone so far as to turn on the very citizens doing the job that THEY should be doing! Obviously it doesn't work that way, and the U.S. Attorneys quoted in this article know that. They are specifically calling on the Minority Party to have the courage to govern. Town Hall, Candidates: You don't need a Majority... you just need a little courage. So far this year Mrs. Matters leads the pack in that category.

The Courage to Govern

In September of 2010, the truncated Town Board (McCabe, O’Brien and Matters), after several attempts to get it right, passed a retirement incentive to allow 5 insiders to retire early with full pensions.  The initiative cost taxpayers $500,000 – paid to the retirement system.  The initiative was, by law, supposed to save taxpayers 25% of the salaries eliminated in each of the next two years.  The Board pledged that it would save more.  I believe that there was also supposed to be a report.  We never heard any more about it, even though the question was raised from time to time, and one “Einstein” suggested on the blog that the report wasn’t for the people and that I should FOIL for it.  Well, I did FOIL.  Here’s the correspondence:

“Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 4:12 PM
To: Keith Langley ; Linda Kennedy ; Kim Carlock
Subject: FOIL
Some time ago the Town spent $500,000 to fund an early retirement
incentive program for certain employees.  One of the provisions involved
in that action required a report on the savings achieved as a result of
that early retirement action.  Under the provisions of the Freedom of
Information Law, I am requesting any and all reports to any and all
governmental entities which document such savings. If such report(s) do
not exist, please advise.
Don Johnson

08/08/2013
Re: Foil
Mr. Johnson,
This is to inform you that we have received your request on 08/02/2013 for
Town records.
We have forwarded your request on to the Finance Department and the
Comptroller’s Office because these records are not in our office.
You will be able to obtain the requested records no later than 09/01/2013.
You will be notified by phone if the information you requested is available
sooner or by mail if they need more time.

If for any reason, any portion of your request is denied, the “denial of
Access” section of the Public record request will be completed in full and
returned to you.

You have the right to appeal any denial by writing to the Supervisor of the
Town of East Greenbush, 225 Columbia Turnpike, Rensselaer New York 12144.

Hi Don.
I wanted to let you know that we were unable to locate the records that you
were inquiring about. I know I said September 1st in my letter but I did not
take into consideration the Holiday. Have a good day.
Kimberly Carlock Deputy Town Clerk”

The Town Board(s) which were supposed to deliver on the legal requirements of the incentive, have basically given the people of the Town the Finger.  As Mr. Malone would say, “we’re the majority, and what we pass, passes.”

The Fiscal Advisers, the Bond raters, the OSC and the Independent Auditors all have basically the same litany of recommendations to get the Town out of the financial mess that it’s in.  These include a financial recovery plan, a hiring freeze, a workload analysis, a more intelligent budgeting process, accounting software, etc. But just like no report on the retirement incentive, we’ve seen NO action on the other generally accepted solutions to the financial difficulties. There will be no relief from the financial stresses which the Town faces until the people elected to govern muster the courage to stop the juvenile play-acting at government run a grown-up business-like operation.  This will take tough decisions in the interest of all the people and will require abandoning the parochial Party interests.