[RP TownTalk] Sister Cities and Budget issues

Mon Jun 6 01:58:58 UTC 2016

Mayor Archer and Council

Per the Budget Worksheets:  https://www.dropbox.com/s/xroimgxrttbm2t5/FY17BUDGET_NOSALARY.pdf?dl=0

I am deeply troubled as a tax payer to watch monies being expended on items, some of which have direct personal financial gains.  Page 7, Account#502 (Mayor & Council OOE) lists out $1200 in the Mayor's cell phone as well as $1500 in Sister City Activities and $6500 for a Council Retreat.

Why would the Council as a whole deem it appropriate for the Mayor to have his cell phone provided for in an age where minutes are unlimited?  Every elected official is on call for their constituents and with the change in government form the Mayoral title is ceremonial and any financial and administrative duties a Mayor once had no longer apply.  I sat through enough budget hearings and when I heard the justification that he deserved it because constituents could call I thought it was bogus then, but in the light of the change in government and fiscal issues it is indefensible to carry forward.

The Mayor going forward is a member of Council with no Ward responsibilities or direct accountability to anyone.  If anything the job is easier vs. a Councilmember.  There is no further justification for this expenditure.  Please remove this profligate spending item.  The Mayor already receives compensation of $12,000 a year (although you as Councilmembers should pass legislation to reduce that down to $6,000 for the next term); all current responsibilities have now been transferred over to a Town Manager.  There shouldn't be additional perks of being in an office that was sold to the public as 'ceremonial' in name only.

Also, I have exceptional problems continuing to pay for the Mayor's trip to Guatemala every year.  In reading about the nexus of the program in prior press articles (links attached), I am uncomfortable from a professional ethics standpoint that the Mayor mixes his personal job as a teacher with a program setup as an exchange with MD teachers going to Ipala to teach English as a Second Language and our town's relationship as a sister city.  The article states the "Maryland teachers paid for their plane tickets;" this is not true for the case of Mayor Archer.  The town taxpayers paid for him to go.  There seems like a conflict of interest here or at a minimum the appearance of impropriety.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having Ipala as a sister city but I have a problem carving out a program that has a direct financial benefit to an elected official.  The Gazette article stated: "Archer, who also traveled with the group, said he wants to continue the program next year and seek grant opportunities to help defray costs."  The town budget should not have been the grant opportunity spoken of.

http://patch.com/maryland/riverdalepark/five-county-teachers-taught-in-guatemala

http://www.gazette.net/stories/08062009/lanhnew173156_32542.shtml

https://www.mdtesol.org/Career-Opportunities/International/Teacher-Exchange-with-Guatemala

Spending tax payer money on a program that is actively marketed by the Mayor in his professional capacity as a teacher raises questions regarding the Maryland Ethics Law that all our elected officials are bound by:

The Ethics Law contains the following general types of prohibitions. Please refer to Md. Code Ann., General Provisions §§5-501 through 5-508 for the specific prohibitions.

1.       An employee or official may not participate in a matter in which he or she has an interest. This prohibition also applies where an official's or employee's relatives (spouse, children, brother, sister or parents), or certain entities has/have an interest. Non-participation includes any discussion, advising or deciding of the matter and requires disclosure of the conflict.

2.       An official or employee may not participate in a matter when one of the parties is a business entity in which he or she has an employment, contractual or creditor relationship. This prohibition also applies when certain relatives (spouse, children, brother, sister or parents) have such a relationship. Non-participation includes any discussion, advising or deciding of the matter and requires disclosure of the conflict.

3.       In most instances an official or employee may not have a financial interest in, or be employed by an entity subject to, the authority of the official or employee, or of the agency with which he or she is affiliated.

4.       An official or employee may not hold any employment relationship that would impair his or her impartiality or independence of judgment.

5.       An official or employee may not intentionally use the prestige of his or her office for personal gain or that of another. This prohibition means an official or employee may not use any influence he/she may have to obtain a special benefit for himself/herself or another.

Finally, I sincerely hope the $6,500 for the "Council Retreat" is removed.  There is no justification for this.  Tax Payers already pay $13,500 so that the Mayor and Council can spend half a week in Ocean City at the Maryland Municipal League conference during high season in June.  We are a small town, things like this are perks of office that do not have to exist, have not existed while I have been in town, and should not exist.

Ultimately though, this is your budget and your decision like always.

JWE
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://riverdale-park.org/pipermail/towntalk/attachments/20160606/3f9c4561/attachment.html>