[RP TownTalk] Town management, finances and legislation

Thu Apr 28 09:49:30 UTC 2016

Friends and neighbors,

I write to address the email Council Member Ebbeler sent recently under the
title "Executive Order/Town's Financial Position."  I share the belief that
the issues discussed are important, but the facts that I and the rest of
the council know are very different.

1. Let me start by stating that we have a town government that functions as
a deliberative body meeting at regular times in Town Hall. The meetings are
open to the public and provide opportunities for people to comment and ask
questions at every meeting.  We do not have a government run by an email
list.

Every single thing that the council member mentioned in his email has
already been addressed in open meeting, under the rules of our government.
He is apparently dissatisfied because the other 5 members of the council
don't agree with him, in large part because they know that his points are
either invalid, or down right untrue.

2. Regarding this years budget. Yes, we suffered the loss of a significant
amount of revenue. However, we will certainly end the year without
overrunning the appropriated revenue. The monthly reports cited clearly
shows there is no danger of not ending the year clearly in the black. The
next ones that will be available after the reconciliation process on Friday
will clearly show the same thing.

For the coming year the budget I will submit to the council and public on
May 2 will be lean, set priorities that will be sustainable in the
following years, and continue all town services at the high levels we all
have come to appreciate and expect. Yes there will be some hard choices to
make, but none that are substantially influenced by whether we have a town
manager vs. a town administrator. By the way, the council will begin its
formal deliberations on my budget proposal on Saturday May 21 completely
open to the public and your comments, and have several more meetings
dealing with it before passing their budget in June.

Also know that we have a "rainy day fund" with substantially more money
than the equivalent of three months of operating expenses which we always
try to have on hand. The recently released audit  of FY 2015 made clear we
had a General Fund (operational) balance of $2,616,418  (equivalent to
almost 6 months of expenditures)  and a total fund balance of $4,350,698.
Incidentally the 2015 audit we received last month revealed NO warnings or
major concerns.

3. Regarding the Executive Order I issued last week CM Ebbeler left out an
essential detail: any expenditures that I reject, will be reported to the
council so the council can make the ultimate decision. The order was
acceptable to all 5 other council members who chose not to falsely
mischaracterize it.

4. It is false to state that the proposed legislation to move to a Council
Manager form of government has been hurried. The general move has been
public since January and the specific legislation has been out since March
7.  The issue has already been open to discussion on at least 3 meetings
and will be open to public comment and amendment by the council prior to
taking action on legislation this coming Monday. *Furthermore, our charter
only allows 60 days to consider charter amendments and ordinances, once
they they have been introduced.*

I have made clear to all involved that I would be happy to add an
additional meeting if it seemed needed; but to date there has been plenty
of time in the three meetings already held.  Here is what has happened so
far:

   - Work session *March 28 *had this legislation as top priority.  There
   was significant public participation; virtually all of it was generally
   favorable to the legislation, though there were concerns about specific
   items and suggestions for improvement.  We did not leave the topic until
   everyone present had finished speaking and no one else came forward to
   continue the conversation.
   - Legislative meeting April 4. The council discussed the legislation at
   length, but there were only two members of the public there to discuss the
   issue.  Councilman Ebbeler *was not there *and he made no request to
   participate in any way via electronic means.
   - Work session April 25 the legislation was on the agenda, but no one
   from the public commented on the legislation when we got to it. Councilman
   Ebbeler *left early prior to the council taking up that item*.

I know that Council members Thompson, Lingua and Henry have had substantial
conversations with members of the community in person, via email and
through their official reports. I have done the same.

It therefore seems clear that that the public has had substantial
opportunity to review, digest, question and suggest improvements or
opposition to the proposed changes and when coupled with the upcoming
opportunity this coming Monday evening there is no reason to add more
meetings or postpone action based on the false statement that this has been
"hurried".

5. Since the move has clearly not been hurried, there are very good reasons
to move forward.

   - Most importantly "not knowing" of pending government reforms is by its
   nature a concern, often down right disconcerting,  to all town staff. We
   need to know what is going to happen and get on with it--if we are going to
   make the change lets do it, if not lets know it and get back to business as
   usual.
   - Prolonging issues simply to prolong them also tells everyone that we
   are doing business with (regional governments, utilities, potential
   economic development partners, neighboring towns, businesses etc) that we
   can't make a decision and aren't worth talking to until we do.
   - If some concern is to surface at the legislative meeting Monday the
   council can of course postpone action. However, as stated already, our
   Charter gives us 60 days to act with the clock starting with introduction
   on March 7, so the council would need to act by the end of that week.
   Clearly our charter does not like to have issues, even important ones, drag
   on too long, for exactly the reason's stated previously.
   - *A new fact that also suggests that we need to reach a conclusion is
   the current town administrator's contact expires June 30 and I have told
   her that I will not support renewing it. I held open negotiating a
   temporary contract contingent on the town manager legislation passing, and
   her applying for that position. She informed me that she will not seek an
   extension and that when her contract expires she will be leaving town
   service. Therefore we will be in the search for a new senior staff member
   whether it is an "administrator" or a "manager" is the only question, and
   one that needs to be settled promptly. *

6. The assertion that a town manager is inherently more expensive than a
town administrator has already been dealt with and debunked. Evidence from
throughout Maryland makes clear that the most substantial determinant is
the town's/population and budget expenditures, not manager vs.
administrator.

7. Councilman Thompson's report in this months Town Crier, based on
research around Maryland, thoroughly debunks other inaccurate claims such
as: only larger cities have managers as opposed to administrators; and that
the review of staffing will have any relevant application to the question
either. Furthermore, the total size and expense of General Government (the
department currently headed by the town administrator) is not going to
change because of this move in any substantial way if it is headed by the
Town Manager instead.

*To Conclude:*

What is clear is that it is time for one more discussion of the substance
of the  Council/Manager legislation and then an up or down vote. Please
come to the meeting Monday, and all of our meetings, and get the whole
story for yourself.  The *first order of business Monday will be the
proposed legislation to move to Council/Manager form of government.*

Best wishes,

Vernon
-- 
Vernon Archer, Mayor
Town of Riverdale Park, Maryland
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://riverdale-park.org/pipermail/towntalk/attachments/20160428/95b1d743/attachment.html>