[RP TownTalk] Feedback for Council

Wed Jul 11 21:03:47 UTC 2012

Thank you - this was a much more thoughtful response.  I will try to address
some of the comments as best as possible.

-the Town Council does officially adopt and does follow Robert's Rules of
Order.  Please see item #1 from the June 6th 2011 meeting:

 <http://www.riverdaleparkmd.info/June%206,%202011.pdf>
http://www.riverdaleparkmd.info/June%206,%202011.pdf

-I am unclear as to what you mean by that 'the town charter has been
altered.'  I do not have the history that you and Don have with the town or
general area and would need clarification on this point before I could
provide any kind of meaningful feedback or opinion.  I guess my basic
question would be what exists as it relates to meetings in the town charter
do you disagree with?  What do you feel needs improvement or attention in
regards to meetings?

-Although your comment concerning the last election results is more or less
accurate (189 total votes) I am not sure what the relevance is.  Riverdale
Park has around 7000 residents though, not 3000 so the turnout was even
worse than the proffered numbers.   Although I wish everyone turned out on
election day and cast a ballot (just as I wish people would turn out to
meetings and offer opinions etc.) they did not.  This is a problem that
happens at every level of government and I am not sure anyone has found the
panacea.  I assume given how active Don and yourself have been in town and
with organizations that you guys both voted.  

Can you provide some clarification on what the connection is between
personal decisions of registered voters to come vote and the interest of
elected officials in the opinions of citizens?  For two of us we had not
held elected office before voting day so even running meant by definition
that we were willing to take a chance on seeing what the opinions of
citizens concerning our capacity to serve.  

-I am not sure there is a good response that would satisfy the comments that
elected officials do not meet with the people in their wards, walk the
streets, or hear from the people.  I am not sure what this relates to. Did I
make you or Don feel that way when I was elected?  Was there something
specific I did or said that I or someone else did or said that caused you to
feel that way?  I see a majority of my colleagues at most major town events
be they the Easter egg hunt, weekly farmer's markets, or the Holiday Market.
I do think there is a point you are trying to make here that some citizenry
may want more personal attention.   It is a valid request and as you know I
have an open door policy and if anyone in town (be they in my Ward or not)
wants to meet with me I am happy to try to carve out the time.  I hope you
have always felt welcome to write me, talk to me, or call.  If there are
specific things it would be completely appropriate for you to address them.

I will hazard a guess here (please correct me if I am off base) and suspect
that some of the comments have to do with the fact that from time to time we
elected to go into closed session.  I realize any time a body elects this
option rumors swirl around and conspiracy theories spring up.  These in the
last 12 months have only happened as measures of last resort.  At times,
when discussing negotiating strategy etc. the Council has had no choice but
to go into them.  There were sensitive pieces of information that had to be
discussed (such as what was our bottom-line walk-away position) that would
have been foolish to make public.  Once an item is in the public domain it
means everyone gets the information .  Why bother negotiating at that point.
So there are two options.  Many bodies will avoid violating the Open
Meetings Act by only having discussions with one person less than a quorum.
OR you can do what we did which was to fully advertise why we were having
private conversations, just not releasing the tenet of those conversations.
Either way the conversations do not happen in full public view, nor can they
without significant detrimental impacts to taxpayers.  

I will say this much and take it for what it is worth, on one hand some in
the community felt that the Council (especially myself) was abrasive to the
Cafritz team, yet in other postings you read that the Council handed the
vote over to their team and this was all a done deal.  How can one reality
have such very different viewpoints?  I don't know but it makes serving a
myriad of people incredibly difficult, frustrating, yet also at times
exceptionally rewarding. That situation however, is what keeps people from
stepping up to run.  You have to be willing to be tugged at by two opposite
viewpoints yet able to navigate a path forward that alienates neither.  It
is the toughest job I have ever had.

Jonathan Ebbeler

From: Melissa Avery [mailto:m.avery at rocketmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 2:50 PM
To: barrett740 at yahoo.com; jebbeler at efusionconsulting.com;
towntalk at riverdale-park.org
Subject: Re: [RP TownTalk] Cafritz Vote

In my experiences the town government is a closed society, not particularly
interested in the opinion of the citizens. the  entirety elected by less
than 200 citizens out of a citizenry of close to 3000. 

The council people do not meet with the people in there wards, walk the
streets of there wards or particularly want to hear from the people who live
in there wards.

The town charter has been altered to state they can conduct town meetings in
any way they see fit, rather than following Roberts Rules of Order which is
the accepted norm.

  _____  

From: "barrett740 at yahoo.com" <barrett740 at yahoo.com>
To: Melissa Avery <m.avery at rocketmail.com>; "jebbeler at efusionconsulting.com"
<jebbeler at efusionconsulting.com>; "towntalk at riverdale-park.org"
<towntalk at riverdale-park.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: [RP TownTalk] Cafritz Vote

That is not very responsive.  I too am interested in differing perspectives
and was looking forward to a more thoughtful response.  Kirsten

Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless

-----Original message-----

From: Melissa Avery <m.avery at rocketmail.com>
To: "jebbeler at efusionconsulting.com" <jebbeler at efusionconsulting.com>,
"towntalk at riverdale-park.org" <towntalk at riverdale-park.org>
Sent: Wed, Jul 11, 2012 17:31:06 GMT+00:00
Subject: Re: [RP TownTalk] Cafritz Vote

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://riverdale-park.org/pipermail/towntalk/attachments/20120711/1cdf8cf2/attachment.html>