[RP TownTalk] Libel, Decorum et. al

Fri Jun 17 13:51:59 UTC 2016

Did anyone else notice that in the Legislative meeting there is a Public Hearing for RISE?  How many times did I implore the Mayor, both at meetings and outside of meetings, to hold a similar meeting for the Charter change in government.  This is why all these calls of 'putting it on the record' are specious.  I spent the last 2 months in office 'putting things on the record' and it did as little good as people saying my posts are falling on deaf ears.  That's fine. I am still going to put the information out there and will leave it up to the public to read, understand, make critical determinations on the veracity of my statements that are backed up with evidence.

For the record, I was never against the Charter change, I was against how it was being done.  It was clear there was an agenda from the start that had nothing to do with the 'professionalization' argument.  How is it that in the history of our town when deciding important issues this was the first piece of legislation that we didn't hold a dedicated Public Hearing for?  We are holding one for RISE, something that has a minimal effect to the day-to-day operations of town government, yet we did not bother to hold one for the Charter change.

I specifically wanted a Public Hearing because there were many things that should have been discussed such as 1) Should the compensation of the Mayor be adjusted down to $6k instead of $12k since the additional duties of the Mayor are non-existent and actually less than our currently structured Councilmembers who earn $6k (or in my case $0 since I withheld all monies and donated every year at least 200% of the stipend to local non-profits), 2) Should Council actually represent Wards since they no longer have the ability to directly advocate to town staff beyond the town manager - i.e. if there is a police or public works issue the 'non-interference clause' forbids a Councilmember in asking the police or public works to address a constituent concern - this can only be communicated to the town manager who will triage its priority to their staff as they unilaterally see fit 3) as Audrey and others pointed out, should we require the town manager to live in town 4) what implications does it have to the immediate operations - i.e. do we expect Sara our current administrator to continue on, to apply, or would we be without a town manager because of the hurried nature of this legislation

In response to any question that I put on the record about the budget, the process, the legislation etc. the Mayor's response officially was 'the rest of us understand and agree Councilman Ebbeler just doesn't get it.'  On the contrary, most of the issues I brought up about the ridiculous cost of Town Hall, the poor execution and lack of consideration towards important issues on major legislation, the de-focus from economic development and hostile environment for new and existing businesses are all coming true.

The Town Hall project was finally shelved due to cost (after expensing an ungodly amount of money to date), some of the points I consistently brought up and was told I didn't know what I was talking about are finally coming to light (increased costs beyond the 10% for the Town Manager the public was sold by the Mayor and Council, lack of continuity of operations etc.), and we now know there has been a complete reversal on the policies that helped shape an environment that brought the first tenants into Town Center in decades.  Last meeting the Council rescinded the Business Grant Legislation that made most of this possible and also killed all the deals that would have brought a Brewpub to Town Center almost fully-tenanting the entire building.  This next meeting they are reversing the eminent domain legislation that the Mayor unlawfully refused for 3 years to enact despite 4 unanimous votes directing him to.

I was a bit amused by the questions of libel. In Maryland there are two standards:

1)      For private citizens like myself - only have to prove negligence on the part of the defendant

2)      For public officials like the Mayor - have to prove actual malice on the part of the defendant - i.e. the statements have to be knowingly false and said or written with malicious intent to harm the person
Defenses of libel that are supported by case law include:

1)      Truth substantiated by facts

2)      Pure Opinion

3)      Fair Reporting

4)      No Harm

5)      No Negligence

6)      Lack of Intent

7)      Privilege
As a private citizen, if any untruthful statements are made about me, it is easy for me to file a case as well as prove it.  For any public official it is nearly impossible unless they are able to prove that statements made are false, were knowingly false, and said with the sole purpose of harming one's character.

People have complained about the length of my posts.  There is no getting around the issue when talking about complicated issues.  I include all relevant facts and evidence that support the comments and questions I have.  I have invited differences of opinion and in fact welcome them.  I am not out to get the Mayor or Council.  If they are unsuccessful it hurts me as well.  I will, however, hold them accountable for what I know to be untruths being told to the public.  There is a reason they have not addressed or engaged my comments or questions - and it isn't because they are libelous, it is because they are accurate.

Look what happened factually:

1)      I pointed out the Mayor was lying in the Executive Order, County records, his comments to the RP Business Association, and his own budget proved my comments

2)      I pointed out the Town Hall project was a ridiculous overspend - it was killed several months later

3)      I pointed out there were glaring misstatements in the budget, they were 'quietly' fixed and re-issued

4)      I pointed out the Town Manager would cost well in excess of 10% (and this does not account for the 40+% run up in cost over the last 3 years on that single position) and we now know the minimum budgeted cost is budgeted around 40%

5)      I pointed out the Mayor was violating his oath of office by refusing to enact legislation on Jey's Auto - and now instead of enacting it, it is being rescinded

6)      I pointed out the Council agenda included an action that violated the law (something they would have voted to do if I had not pointed it out) and after hemming and hawing and pretending they were unaware they voted without any prior notification to the public to rescind the law

7)      I pointed out that the Charter change had more implications operationally than just what was being sold - now we are seeing some of them with the town spending probably half a year or more without a functional Chief Operating Officer

8)      I pointed out the financial issues - the Mayor has publically admitted to some of them but has not addressed the issue of future tax increases.  Why do I get the feeling the first task of our new Town Manager in FY18 will be to raise the tax rate and the Mayor and Council will pretend they had nothing to do with the situation.

9)      And the list could go on...........

I have repeatedly asked people to debate the facts I presented.  I have oodles of backup material to prove the points and questions I bring up.  On top of that there is additional information currently being withheld by the town.  If you think that a response to a lawful request for information of demanding a minimum payment of $6200 is appropriate so be it, I don't.

The reason I always engaged people who disagreed with me is simple.  I don't assume my opinions or read of evidence is always perfect. I have always learned immensely by people disagreeing with me.  I just hold people to account and have high standards of intellectual honesty when making arguments.  Pure and simple, I realize it is easy to dismiss my posts as sour grapes, libel, or whatever other characterization that allows people to dismiss what I say because it leads to uncomfortable conversations and topics.  BUT, I have yet to see anyone debate the substance of my comments......and it is crickets from the elected officials.

JWE
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://riverdale-park.org/pipermail/towntalk/attachments/20160617/47de3b98/attachment.html>