[RP TownTalk] My proposal to repeal the Town Crier section of the Code

[Gerard Kiernan]

Dear Town Talkers, 

I would like to shed some light on the issue of repealing the newsletter
ordinance from the town code.  Below you will find the resolution I intend
to propose at an upcoming meeting of the town council. Let me explain the
background of it and why I am proposing this course of action.

First, did you know that Riverdale Park is the only municipal government in
Maryland to have a law defining the operation of its town newsletter?  The
staff at the Maryland Municipal League was amazed to hear that we had such a
law, when I called to ask if anyone else had one. Many officials of other
towns when asked about this topic showed a similar bewilderment. Also, the
Town Crier was published for many decades without this law, which was only
passed in 2001.

Clearly, I would not be seeking the repeal of this law had it worked out
well in practice.  The very reason for the existence of the Crier is to
allow the town government to effectively communicate with residents. You
elect a mayor and council to work on your behalf and part of doing that
effectively is communicating town policies and actions to the community. Can
you depend on that occurring if the mayor and council CANNOT exercise
authority over the Crier?  Chapter 3 forbids any elected official to
"direct" the editor or publisher (the town administrator functions as the
publisher) about ANYTHING regarding the Crier.

Some of the ways the former editor has used Chapter 3 to ignore stated town
policy over the last six months include:

 Refusing to stay within budget (and apparently feeling no need to come to
the council to request additional funding).

 Refusing to include any information in Spanish‹while simultaneously
expanding the size of the Crier.

 Refusing to include advertising for the Riverdale Farmer¹s Market, which
is funded by an entirely separate account from that which funds the Crier.
   

Because of the wording of the Chapter, the Mayor is prohibited from
including the Crier in his annual performance review of the Town
Administrator. The publisher does not seem to be giving appropriate
oversight, but the Mayor can't do anything about it.

When this issue was first raised several months ago, Mary Donaldson
introduced a measure to just repeal the sentence denying the mayor and
council oversight. It failed by one vote, but the two votes against change
had first asked to table the motion for further study.  The Mayor mistakenly
ruled that the matter could not be tabled after a vote was underway, so the
measure failed (one person abstained thereby denying the 4 votes needed for
passage). I therefore felt that the three votes for against immediate action
actually wanted more time to study the issue and gather information.

Here is the current version of the resolution that I plan to introduce.
Since a resolution must be published in a newspaper of general circulation
before it is voted on, and because there is no regular Town Crier in
January, and because a resolution must be voted on within 60 days of its
introduction, I may hold it to January to introduce and vote on it in
February.  

Ordinance Resolution 2005-OR-xx

Repeal of Chapter 3 of the Code of the Town of Riverdale Park

Whereas, the Town of Riverdale Park is the only municipality in the State of
Maryland to have Code section defining the operation of its newsletter, and

Whereas, Chapter 3 of the Code of the Town of Riverdale Park limits the
powers of the Town Council to provide Community Services as enumerated in §
302 of the Charter of Riverdale Park, and

Whereas, Chapter 3 of the Code of Riverdale Park limits the powers of the
Mayor as chief executive and administrative officer as defined in § 404 of
the Charter of Riverdale Park,

Therefore, be it resolved that Chapter 3 of the Code of Riverdale Park,
"Town Crier or Newsletter", be repealed in its entirety.







-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://riverdale-park.org/pipermail/towntalk/attachments/20051201/5ccce582/attachment-0003.html>