[RP TownTalk] [Fwd: Re: Signs on our northern boarder]
Don Lynch
dlynch at garretroomstudios.com
Thu Aug 20 02:58:00 UTC 2009
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [RP TownTalk] Signs on our northern boarder
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 22:49:23 -0400
From: Don Lynch <dlynch at garretroomstudios.com>
To: Vernon Archer <varcher at gmail.com>
References:
<f86ada2a0908190922v25473986hc0139eb93f6f2b26 at mail.gmail.com>
<4A8C3A23.2070609 at garretroomstudios.com>
<f86ada2a0908191112l748c468br21cc58bf3cc4b68b at mail.gmail.com>
<4A8C424F.9090207 at garretroomstudios.com>
<f86ada2a0908191155g268b013bo3e61ba5a64b24efe at mail.gmail.com>
In view of Dwight's rule, I submit a response,
According to the town charter:
(a) General Rule - The newsletter shall accept for publication
letters to the editor from town residents who are not elected
officials of the town. Any
letter must include a name, address ...
The rules are clear that the Town Crier is _required_ to "publish"
letters of opinions outside the town council.
There is no other way to interpret this very simple sentence.
Don
Vernon Archer wrote:
> Don,
>
> I understand the terminology used in the ordinance and it is important
> to look at the whole of Chapter 3 when considering such matters.
> It does not require an editorial section. It requires that the editor
> publish letters submitted to him/her--under certain broad guidelines.
>
> As I am required by the ordinance to not direct the editor (except if
> the editor is failing to follow the ordinance) I can not direct the
> editor to create an editorial section. The ordinance does require the
> editor to print letters to the editor from the public (so long as the
> letters meet the criteria in the ordinance) and if there were ever a
> case where the editor failed to do so, I would promptly order the
> editor to publish said letter. Such an omission has never occurred so
> far as I know--Rob, Marita and Kandese have all been very scrupulous
> to my knowledge in fulfilling the requirements of the ordinance and in
> fact have periodically gone to great lengths to get people to submit
> letters and articles to the Crier.
>
> Vern
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Don Lynch
> <dlynch at garretroomstudios.com <mailto:dlynch at garretroomstudios.com>>
> wrote:
>
> I apologize.
>
> You obviously do not understand the terminology.
>
> There is an absence of a "letter to the editor" section, not the
> existence of an editor.
>
> Don
>
> Vernon Archer wrote:
>
> Don,
> The editor-in-chief of the Town Crier is Kandese Alan who can
> be contacted at rptowncrier at comcast.net
> <mailto:rptowncrier at comcast.net>
> <mailto:rptowncrier at comcast.net
> <mailto:rptowncrier at comcast.net>> There has never been any
> significant break between editors in my administration.
> Roberty Oppenheim was in place when I took office. He was
> followed by Marita Novicky, with Kandese taking over after
> that. Vern
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Don Lynch
> <dlynch at garretroomstudios.com
> <mailto:dlynch at garretroomstudios.com>
> <mailto:dlynch at garretroomstudios.com
> <mailto:dlynch at garretroomstudios.com>>> wrote:
>
> Well this is indeed, a sad day for Riverdale Park.
>
> To receive word, late in this discussion, about a very
> important
> issue from one of the town's officials.
>
> We asked College Park about this issue and got an immediate
> response. It took a day later to hear from our own elected
> official.
>
> Now we hear that some officials are reciting the exact
> definition
> of transparency.
>
> Well, anyone educated in the civics, knows that there is a term
> called intent. Contracts, legal documents, etc. inherently
> have an
> implied clause called intent.
>
> To have transparency in government means that it is
> incumbent upon
> the leadership to keep its constituency informed.
>
> It is obvious to everyone in this town that this listserve,
> which
> was mandated by our town government, is a viable and valid
> form of
> communication.
>
> So now I'm quoting chapter and verse:
>
> *§3-2. Letters to the Editor.*
>
> (a) General Rule - The newsletter shall accept for publication
> letters to the editor from
>
> town residents who are not elected officials of the town. Any
> letter must include a name, address
>
> and telephone number of the person submitting the letter and be
> signed by that person. Any
>
> person writing such letters shall be limited to one letter
> of two
> hundred and fifty (250) words or
>
> less per edition of the town newsletter. Such letters must
> relate
> to administrative, regulatory or
>
> Legislative functions of the town, or be of some matter of
> unique
> concern to the town or
>
> its residents (e.g., obituaries, events of town groups or
> town-sponsored organizations, history of
>
> - 301 -
>
> Revised 01- 08
>
> the town, etc.). Such letters may promote a position on
> matters of
> public policy, but may not
>
> advocate support or opposition for any candidate for public
> office. Such letters shall be directed
>
> to the Editor-in-Chief of the newsletter and shall be
> printed in
> the next issue of the newsletter
>
> after it has been received.
>
> (B) Time of Submission - A deadline of the 15th day of the
> calendar month shall be set
>
> for any submission to be printed in the next edition. If a
> letter
> to the editor is received after the
>
> submission deadline, it shall be printed in the following
> edition.
> In the event multiple
>
> submissions are received for an upcoming edition, the
> Editor-in-Chief shall set forth two (2) full
>
> pages for such letters and if ample space is still not
> available,
> provide a written rationale for why
>
> some letters were printed and others were held to the
> subsequent
> edition. No letter deemed
>
> appropriate under the guidelines may be held for any reason for
> more than 45 days before
>
> publication.
>
> (c) Editing for Length and Content - In the event a letter
> exceeds
> the two hundred and
>
> fifty (250) word length, it shall be subject to editing by the
> Editor-in-Chief who shall shorten its
>
> length by removing or replacing words, but who shall not change
> the intent of the letter writer.
>
> In the event any portion of the content shall include curse
> words
> inappropriate for publication,
>
> the Editor-in-Chief shall have the authority to remove or
> replace
> such words at his or her
>
> discretion.
>
>
> ==========================================================================
>
> So, it seems that this administration is in violation of town
> ordinances requiring an editorial section of the Town Crier.,
> which has not existed for some time.
>
> I request that the ordinance staff serve this administration a
> citation to this effect which is proper under the balance
> of powers.
>
> It would be nice if for once this current administration would
> focus on the needs of this town.
>
> We recently had a business fail in town center and not one
> council
> member or mayor bothered to make a comment.
>
> Again, it is a sad day in Riverdale Park.
>
> Don
>
> ================================================
>
>
>
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Vernon Archer wrote:
>
> To all concerned about the signs marking our boarders, and
> related issues,
> Having had the time now to clarify with our public
> works
> department exactly what transpired regarding our sign
> in the
> proximity of our boarder with College Park I will share the
> following relevant facts:
> The town had worked an agreement with College Park
> sometime prior
> to June 2005 to place our welcome sign slightly within the
> boundaries of College Park. This was a courtesy from
> College Park
> not a permanent right. When CP decided to follow the
> example we
> set some years ago and place signs on there boundaries,
> they
> removed our sign, withdrew their permission to post our
> sign on
> their territory and returned the sign to us.
> Riverdale Park's public works is systematically
> refurbishing all
> of our town signs that need it--not just the boarder
> welcoming
> signs, but all signs--as time and resources allow. Our
> welcome
> signs went up in the proximity of 10 years ago and have
> shown the
> ware so are being refurbished. I mistakenly assumed
> that the one
> that came down on College Park's boundary was removed by RP
> workers, but in fact it was removed by CP workers--this
> level of
> detail as to who actually physically performs tasks
> that are
> directed by me to be carried out are rarely reported to
> me in
> detail for what I assume are obvious reasons, I just
> want the
> signs cleaned up and looking good.
> Public works informs me that this sign should be
> back up, in its
> new location within the boundaries of Riverdale Park by
> the end
> of next week. I thank Audrey Bragg for
> volunteering to beautify the new
> location and Mr. Addison will contact you directly to
> coordinate
> with you.
> There also seems to be some confusion about the
> property
> ownership along our boarder with CP. The property to the
> immediate south of Albion Street is owned by WMATA, not the
> Cafritz interest. The Cafritz property is solely
> within the
> boundaries of Riverdale Park--at least in the proximity
> of Route
> 1. I cannot swear the the Cafritz family does not own
> property in
> CP in the area, whoever the "Cafritz Property" that is
> currently
> zoned for single family houses that they wish to rezone and
> develop in a mixed use fashion along Route 1 is
> entirely within
> the boundaries of Riverdale Park.
> I certainly do not have time right now to give a
> complete review
> of where the Cafritz effort to gain rezoning stands.
> However, it
> is safe to say that all four relevant governments, Prince
> George's County, Riverdale Park, College Park and
> University Park
> are waiting, and have been waiting for some time now,
> for the
> Cafritz team to come back to us with a revised traffic
> impact mitigation plan that is acceptable. Until this
> happens
> there in no possibility of the rezoning that the
> Cafritz seek
> ever being granted.
> Lastly, I wish to remind all of you that "Town
> Talk" is not an
> official means of giving information to the public.
> Transparency
> as defined by state law and town charter comes from two
> sources:
> 1) reports in public meetings (which all are invited to
> attend
> and participate in); and 2) reports and postings
> published in
> periodicals of general circulation--such as the Town
> Crier and
> The Gazette. I ordered the creation of Town Talk to
> facilitate
> the free flow of information to the public and I think it
> definitely helps to keep the public informed, but it is
> neither
> the correct way to report problems, nor is it reasonable to
> expect quick or flawless answers to every question or
> concern
> every subscriber has.
> That being said, I hope that any concerns about the
> marking of
> our northern boundary are now satisfied, but if not please
> bring questions or comments to the next work session on
> August
> 31st at 8 PM at Town Hall.
> Best wishes,
> Vern -- Vernon Archer, Mayor
> Town of Riverdale Park, Maryland
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> TownTalk mailing list
> To post to the list, send mail to
> TownTalk at riverdale-park.org
> <mailto:TownTalk at riverdale-park.org>
> <mailto:TownTalk at riverdale-park.org
> <mailto:TownTalk at riverdale-park.org>>
> TownTalk-request at riverdale-park.org
> <mailto:TownTalk-request at riverdale-park.org>
> <mailto:TownTalk-request at riverdale-park.org
> <mailto:TownTalk-request at riverdale-park.org>> is for
> automated subscription processing only
>
> http://riverdale-park.org/mailman/listinfo/towntalk
>
> For more information about Riverdale Park, visit
> http://www.riverdaleparkmd.info
> <http://www.riverdaleparkmd.info/>
> <http://www.riverdaleparkmd.info/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Vernon Archer, Mayor
> Town of Riverdale Park, Maryland
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Vernon Archer, Mayor
> Town of Riverdale Park, Maryland
More information about the TownTalk
mailing list