Is the APA a "shadow government" or a model of good government?

We’ve had a complex and sometimes heated debate here over the last few weeks over the Adirondack Park Agency’s mission and methods.

A lot of critics have blasted the APA as secretive and remote from the locals most impacted by its decisions.

The Glens Falls Post-Star described the APA as a “shadow” government.

New litigation filed last year will test the accusation that Agency staff “colluded” with the Adirondack Council environmental group.

I was thinking about that yesterday while watching developments in Ray Brook at the Agency’s monthly meeting.

I know I’ll get slammed as an APA shill for saying this, but in many ways the Agency strikes me as a model for open and transparent government.

Here’s why:

It is incredibly common for me as a journalist to find out about important North Country developments because of the APA’s highly public process.

Yesterday, APA officials disclosed as part of their monthly report that a new high-power transmission line is being contemplated for Lake Champlain.

It’s a huge and potentially controversial issue and this was the first I’d heard of it.

I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve learned about big developments — at the Department of Transportation, the Department of Environmental Conservation, the New York Power Authority, and other state entities — because of the public review and disclosure process at the APA.

Unlike almost every other state entity (there are a few exceptions), the Park Agency meets in public every month.

Every major decision is made in public, after public debates that have grown more feisty and nuanced in recent years.

It was also noteworthy yesterday to watch APA commissioners debating important decisions, from cell phone towers to the fight against eurasian watermilfoil.

Most of those commissioners (6 of 11) live and work inside the Blue Line.

(Here’s the list of Park resident commissioners: Curt Stiles (chairman); Frank Mezzano; Betsy Lowe; Arthur Lussi; Bill Thomas; Lani Ulrich)

I think it’s arguable that there’s far more “local” input over this Agency’s decisions than over any other state agency in the Park.

I’m not suggesting that concerns about the APA aren’t valid. It’s fair to question whether its mission is still legitimate forty years after creation.

It’s natural for local governments to chafe at the mere existence of another state bureaucracy that limits their authority.

Many locals bristle at the idea of having their private land regulated by anyone, let alone a state entity whose primary mission is Park preservation.

State Senator Betty Little is proposing to give local governments more influence over choosing in-Park members of the APA board.

It’s an interesting idea, well worth debating.

And if the litigation now underway proves any illegal activity on the part of the APA, then major reforms will certainly be needed.

But while those debates are underway, I would love to see other state agencies adopt at least some of the Park Agency’s procedures.

Imagine if the state Department of Transportation held monthly public meetings in each region that they administer. Or the DEC.

Imagine if average citizens, average taxpayers, actually got to vote on their decisions.

The next time the APA’s unique role in bringing public issues to light could be in April, when commissioners will review detailed plans for the new Crown Point bridge.