Agreed. Wondering if age-old differences regarding public-private partnership in the park are at play here.
Do they feel Rice will personally benefit financially from moving the headquarters to the village in which she lives, on top of what she earns at the APA?
That has been said, but it’s silly. Anyone who wants to buy furniture at her family’s store could just as easily do that with the headquarters 4 miles away in Ray Brook. If Saranac Lake benefits as a whole, that is a good thing and something that is part of the APA’s mission
A petty charge, lacking substance. Am fearful that in the midst of all the controversy the mission of the APA will be diminished, ignored, or even lost—the conservation and preservation of our beloved and beautiful Adirondacks.
“culture of fear…. bullying, hurtful conflicts, and general abusive behavior… a massive increase in reports to PEF of a toxic workplace”
These are serious accusations by the PEF union local against APA management, but apparently are not backed up by citations of specific incidences and behaviors. I think it’s incumbent on the union to provide evidence in support of the accusations, or file formal grievances regarding the work environment. Failing that, the issues devolve into a standoff of conflicting claims.
That said, I don’t think the entire matter should be dismissed. We need to keep in mind the context of this turmoil — the NYS Inspector General’s Office is investigating a complaint of APA corruption, an investigation which seems to be ongoing. And there are legitimate concerns about how the APA has arrived at its "preferred" proposal to relocate its headquarters from Ray Brook to Saranac Lake.
The anonymous complaints came first, then the IG office investigation, which I suspect was started because of complaints from the same sources. I expect that investigation, when its content is finally revealed, will prove to be as flimsy as the claims of Barb having a "conflict of interest" in moving the HQ to Saranac Lake because she grew up there and her family has run a furniture store there for generations.
Do they though? Seems to me this is (was) entirely an internal issue that could have been handled appropriately and privately (and professionally) through proper channels. It would be inappropriate for management to comment on an employee issue nor is it our business. Seems to me whoever the bad actors are here are taking advantage of that and found the perfect bedfellow in The Explorer who seems to prefer to report on innuendo rather than truth these days.
Yes, I think both sides have some explaining to do. There’s an overall lack of transparency on both sides that I find concerning.
For APA management, what alternatives did the APA explore prior to deciding on the relocation proposal and choosing its "preferred" site? Did it commission a study to examine all the options? How did the APA arrive at its "preferred" proposal for relocation? The APA commissioned a feasibility study for this specific move. Was this study ever released? I find it interesting that now, the discussion seems to be centered on whether it’s a positive outcome for Saranac Lake, rather than on the need for the relocation in the first instance.
And for the union, as I’ve stated, there are serious accusations by the PEF union local against APA management. But apparently these are not backed up by citations of specific incidences and behaviors. I think it’s incumbent on the union to provide evidence in support of the accusations, or file formal grievances regarding the work environment. Failing that, the issues devolve into a standoff of conflicting claims.
Totally agree re PEF. I misunderstood your comment believing it was regarding the specific topic of this article.
I do, however, question why the move is being pushed as such a big deal. It’s into a historic building that will now have the funds to be renovated and updated. Seems like a win-win to me. I guess my question is, why not there? How much money should the agency spend on exploring other options (maybe they have?) and how many other locations should be considered in order to satisfy a suspicious minority?
I can see how the current building could be a source of security for the old guard given the hostility from the public they have faced in the past. It’s removed from community and parked next to the DEC and NYS Troopers. I can think of no better way to break that two-way stigma than to move the agency into a community that would make it more accessible and open physically while Barb works to make the agency more transparent and approachable.
Sometimes I think folks are so used to trashing the APA that they don’t really want it to succeed.
There are advantages and disadvantages to most decisions. And I agree that there are real advantages to a move of HQ to Saranac Lake. Maybe that’s the best option. But how would I know that?
To me, prudence and common sense dictate that, in the first instance, all reasonable options regarding the APA’s current facilities be explored, weighing the pros and cons of each, prior to making a proposal. What are the options? Staying put and doing nothing. Rehabilitating the current facilities. Building new on the current site in Ray Brook. Moving to another existing site. Building new at another site. Has this exploration been done? If not, why not? I believe these are real concerns.
With all due respect, a rationale of "why not there" is just insufficient. Where’s the transparency in all this?
Therese, there appears to be a reluctance by the APA to release information from the start. Scroll down to “Agency keeping plans quiet” in the following link.
However this plays out it doesn’t address the elephant in the room which is the unfortunate shift of the APA from protecting the environment while also supporting the towns, villages and hamlets of the Park to a pro development rubber stamp agency. Yes, there needs to be balance but it has skewed the wrong way.
Will, the issue to me is not whether or not the APA employees like the director. They would either like her or dislike her at the existing location or a new downtown location. In my work, I have worked with the APA on many occasions, and quite successfully I might add. I have gotten along with the staff and am happy to work with the agency. I would hate to see what the park would look like if we didn't have them. The issue to me is that several years ago, the Agency asked the taxpayers to pay for an addition and renovations to their existing facility and we agreed to it. They got the work done and it came out fine. Now after this short a time we have a new director and we play the "new director new facility" game. I cannot get behind that. They are fine where they are. Both can be true, the staff are fine with her, and she is overreaching with her request to move. My attitude is keep them where they are. If they had not just renovated I might feel differently.
The money for a new building was granted by the state before Barb became the executive director. of The current building is old and in bad shape. It was originally a log cabin A new building was going to happen, regardless. The question was (and is) where it will be
If as you say it was a bad building to start with why would they have performed the addition to a bad building? Why at that time did they not abandon that building and construct or move to a new building then? This is a compounding of bad decisions. Further, they are proposing to move into a building that several others have abandoned. Why? Are they buying a white elephant? I know that their building was a log cabin. They quickly outgrew it. But the addition is not. They are still a state agency and belong on the state complex.
I don't know when the addition was built or why, but I'm guessing it was for the same reason the state allocated money for a new building -- the old building is in bad shape. I also assume it was less expensive to build an addition and so, that was the choice then. The Paul Smith's Power and Light Building is also old (older, actually) but it is a solid structure of steel, masonry and terra cotta, not a log cabin. It is a historic building on the national register and will be extensively rehabbed. Also, a second new building would be constructed behind it. So the move will incorporate downtown revitalization and historic rehabilitation. The APA doesn't "belong" on an island of property along Route 86 with two other state facilities. It is there now and can be moved to a better location.
We'll see what happens. but it looks like we are each holding on to our opinion. I will continue to read your columns in any event. I find them informative.
This additional information is sounding even more familiar to me than what was in your last column, Will. There is a faction that thinks their boss is a bully and a tyrant, and a faction who think she’s a marvelous and compassionate leader. The funny thing is, they can both be right. I saw it with my own eyes at my school. We had a superintendent who was for all intents and purposes like a split personality. If you did something he didn’t like (and it didn’t have to be a big important thing) you were on his naughty list and nothing you did could ever improve your standing. If he liked you, you were golden, and he was benevolent and kind. If you were on the outs, you thought those who supported him were suck-ups and brown-nosers. If you were in the fold, you thought all his detractors were malingering malcontents. It WAS a toxic workplace environment, even though not everyone disliked him, because of the friction and distrust it caused between all the employees. People who tried to stay out of the fray and not be drawn into the drama were distrusted by both camps! As far as the business side of superintending went I suppose he was fairly competent, but he lacked the people managing skills necessary to get everyone to pull together as a team.
That's an interesting portrait of a bad boss. My experience with Barb and the testimony of employees I've spoken with convince me it isn't a description of her.
I generally respect the Explorer, but know and trust Will Doolittle’s work. I would say that this controversy shows that independent investigative journalism is sorely needed. The Explorer has filled some of this niche in certain areas. The Tingley/ Doolittle team has done a great job , filling the gap left by the declining Post Star.
An unsigned letter?
That would be of less value than an anonymous source, except that you can use it to start your woodstove.
Yes, very little value. Like anonymous sources, unsigned letters should in most cases be ignored
I think anonymous sources are not bad, if the information they give you can be corroborated with other sources and information
Why does this “cabal” not want to change? Is that really all that’s going on?
Good question. They should step forward, identify themselves and say what is bothering them, rather than seeking sneaky ways to undermine their boss
Agreed. Wondering if age-old differences regarding public-private partnership in the park are at play here.
Do they feel Rice will personally benefit financially from moving the headquarters to the village in which she lives, on top of what she earns at the APA?
That has been said, but it’s silly. Anyone who wants to buy furniture at her family’s store could just as easily do that with the headquarters 4 miles away in Ray Brook. If Saranac Lake benefits as a whole, that is a good thing and something that is part of the APA’s mission
A petty charge, lacking substance. Am fearful that in the midst of all the controversy the mission of the APA will be diminished, ignored, or even lost—the conservation and preservation of our beloved and beautiful Adirondacks.
Thanks for the follow up. Here’s another example of the dangers of unsigned letters. Thanks for shining a light.
Taking their cues from Doge perhaps.., knowingly or not..,
“culture of fear…. bullying, hurtful conflicts, and general abusive behavior… a massive increase in reports to PEF of a toxic workplace”
These are serious accusations by the PEF union local against APA management, but apparently are not backed up by citations of specific incidences and behaviors. I think it’s incumbent on the union to provide evidence in support of the accusations, or file formal grievances regarding the work environment. Failing that, the issues devolve into a standoff of conflicting claims.
That said, I don’t think the entire matter should be dismissed. We need to keep in mind the context of this turmoil — the NYS Inspector General’s Office is investigating a complaint of APA corruption, an investigation which seems to be ongoing. And there are legitimate concerns about how the APA has arrived at its "preferred" proposal to relocate its headquarters from Ray Brook to Saranac Lake.
The anonymous complaints came first, then the IG office investigation, which I suspect was started because of complaints from the same sources. I expect that investigation, when its content is finally revealed, will prove to be as flimsy as the claims of Barb having a "conflict of interest" in moving the HQ to Saranac Lake because she grew up there and her family has run a furniture store there for generations.
In my opinion, both sides have some explaining to do.
Do they though? Seems to me this is (was) entirely an internal issue that could have been handled appropriately and privately (and professionally) through proper channels. It would be inappropriate for management to comment on an employee issue nor is it our business. Seems to me whoever the bad actors are here are taking advantage of that and found the perfect bedfellow in The Explorer who seems to prefer to report on innuendo rather than truth these days.
Yes, I think both sides have some explaining to do. There’s an overall lack of transparency on both sides that I find concerning.
For APA management, what alternatives did the APA explore prior to deciding on the relocation proposal and choosing its "preferred" site? Did it commission a study to examine all the options? How did the APA arrive at its "preferred" proposal for relocation? The APA commissioned a feasibility study for this specific move. Was this study ever released? I find it interesting that now, the discussion seems to be centered on whether it’s a positive outcome for Saranac Lake, rather than on the need for the relocation in the first instance.
And for the union, as I’ve stated, there are serious accusations by the PEF union local against APA management. But apparently these are not backed up by citations of specific incidences and behaviors. I think it’s incumbent on the union to provide evidence in support of the accusations, or file formal grievances regarding the work environment. Failing that, the issues devolve into a standoff of conflicting claims.
Totally agree re PEF. I misunderstood your comment believing it was regarding the specific topic of this article.
I do, however, question why the move is being pushed as such a big deal. It’s into a historic building that will now have the funds to be renovated and updated. Seems like a win-win to me. I guess my question is, why not there? How much money should the agency spend on exploring other options (maybe they have?) and how many other locations should be considered in order to satisfy a suspicious minority?
I can see how the current building could be a source of security for the old guard given the hostility from the public they have faced in the past. It’s removed from community and parked next to the DEC and NYS Troopers. I can think of no better way to break that two-way stigma than to move the agency into a community that would make it more accessible and open physically while Barb works to make the agency more transparent and approachable.
Sometimes I think folks are so used to trashing the APA that they don’t really want it to succeed.
There are advantages and disadvantages to most decisions. And I agree that there are real advantages to a move of HQ to Saranac Lake. Maybe that’s the best option. But how would I know that?
To me, prudence and common sense dictate that, in the first instance, all reasonable options regarding the APA’s current facilities be explored, weighing the pros and cons of each, prior to making a proposal. What are the options? Staying put and doing nothing. Rehabilitating the current facilities. Building new on the current site in Ray Brook. Moving to another existing site. Building new at another site. Has this exploration been done? If not, why not? I believe these are real concerns.
With all due respect, a rationale of "why not there" is just insufficient. Where’s the transparency in all this?
Therese, there appears to be a reluctance by the APA to release information from the start. Scroll down to “Agency keeping plans quiet” in the following link.
https://www.adirondackexplorer.org/stories/saranac-lake-gets-funding-for-hydroelectric-repairs
However this plays out it doesn’t address the elephant in the room which is the unfortunate shift of the APA from protecting the environment while also supporting the towns, villages and hamlets of the Park to a pro development rubber stamp agency. Yes, there needs to be balance but it has skewed the wrong way.
Can you provide some examples of them pro development rubber stamping?
Will, the issue to me is not whether or not the APA employees like the director. They would either like her or dislike her at the existing location or a new downtown location. In my work, I have worked with the APA on many occasions, and quite successfully I might add. I have gotten along with the staff and am happy to work with the agency. I would hate to see what the park would look like if we didn't have them. The issue to me is that several years ago, the Agency asked the taxpayers to pay for an addition and renovations to their existing facility and we agreed to it. They got the work done and it came out fine. Now after this short a time we have a new director and we play the "new director new facility" game. I cannot get behind that. They are fine where they are. Both can be true, the staff are fine with her, and she is overreaching with her request to move. My attitude is keep them where they are. If they had not just renovated I might feel differently.
The money for a new building was granted by the state before Barb became the executive director. of The current building is old and in bad shape. It was originally a log cabin A new building was going to happen, regardless. The question was (and is) where it will be
If as you say it was a bad building to start with why would they have performed the addition to a bad building? Why at that time did they not abandon that building and construct or move to a new building then? This is a compounding of bad decisions. Further, they are proposing to move into a building that several others have abandoned. Why? Are they buying a white elephant? I know that their building was a log cabin. They quickly outgrew it. But the addition is not. They are still a state agency and belong on the state complex.
I don't know when the addition was built or why, but I'm guessing it was for the same reason the state allocated money for a new building -- the old building is in bad shape. I also assume it was less expensive to build an addition and so, that was the choice then. The Paul Smith's Power and Light Building is also old (older, actually) but it is a solid structure of steel, masonry and terra cotta, not a log cabin. It is a historic building on the national register and will be extensively rehabbed. Also, a second new building would be constructed behind it. So the move will incorporate downtown revitalization and historic rehabilitation. The APA doesn't "belong" on an island of property along Route 86 with two other state facilities. It is there now and can be moved to a better location.
We'll see what happens. but it looks like we are each holding on to our opinion. I will continue to read your columns in any event. I find them informative.
That does happen. I am glad you’re going to keep reading us
This additional information is sounding even more familiar to me than what was in your last column, Will. There is a faction that thinks their boss is a bully and a tyrant, and a faction who think she’s a marvelous and compassionate leader. The funny thing is, they can both be right. I saw it with my own eyes at my school. We had a superintendent who was for all intents and purposes like a split personality. If you did something he didn’t like (and it didn’t have to be a big important thing) you were on his naughty list and nothing you did could ever improve your standing. If he liked you, you were golden, and he was benevolent and kind. If you were on the outs, you thought those who supported him were suck-ups and brown-nosers. If you were in the fold, you thought all his detractors were malingering malcontents. It WAS a toxic workplace environment, even though not everyone disliked him, because of the friction and distrust it caused between all the employees. People who tried to stay out of the fray and not be drawn into the drama were distrusted by both camps! As far as the business side of superintending went I suppose he was fairly competent, but he lacked the people managing skills necessary to get everyone to pull together as a team.
That's an interesting portrait of a bad boss. My experience with Barb and the testimony of employees I've spoken with convince me it isn't a description of her.
I generally respect the Explorer, but know and trust Will Doolittle’s work. I would say that this controversy shows that independent investigative journalism is sorely needed. The Explorer has filled some of this niche in certain areas. The Tingley/ Doolittle team has done a great job , filling the gap left by the declining Post Star.