[RP TownTalk] Attendance at Council Meetings

Fri Mar 4 23:36:08 UTC 2016

Oh Vernon you are so misinformed.  It's called due process.  It's not a theory - it's a constitutional right - something you took an oath of office to uphold.

You have to have an absence policy in place which defines excused vs unexcused, which we do not have, prior to defining an absence as unexcused. Otherwise any interpretation of excused vs unexcused cannot be adequately determined and exposes the town to legal action (which you are doing now). Council could have taken the matter up meeting by meeting and made a determination (still precarious but has some case law foundation) but they did not.  This would have also provided some notification prior to your "gotcha" moment. Additionally, consistency of policy has to be adhered to which throughout your tenure has not been followed.

At what point in time did you ever bring this up as a potential issue or make appropriate notifications prior to me asking you last Saturday to do your job and act on the Jeys Auto ordinance passed three years ago?  I appreciate that it's on the agenda now but I shouldn't have to beg you to do your job and tend to things that should have happened at least a year ago.  And I am going to guess that you are going to recommend now we not pursue the property so we can continue to build a town hall expansion despite our town administrator losing a 500k grant by forgetting to use the money and despite the final price tag being more than our yearly budget. By delaying action you cost the taxpayers money. By not looking at alternatives like renting the 2nd floor of town center you ensure future tax raises that could avoid a 90+ year break even.

It seems an odd play on your part to want taxpayers to pay for the cost of two special elections vs one of you were in fact "keeping your peace". It would have made much more sense for there to be a single election unless  taxpayer money is just something to be wasted.

Regardless of missed meetings due to out of state work obligations, I still meet regularly with the development community and do my job. I am still bringing in another business into town center that will be welcomed with open arms and occupy most of the 1st floor.

 It's a shame there is more of a focus on a political vendetta than the crumbling infrastructure.  If the town spent half the time and money that has been devoted to this nonsense maybe our bridges and stormwater management would be in better shape.  We have plenty of issues in town and spending even a dollar on this kind of nonsense is criminal.

I have no issue adjudicating this Vern and have retained legal counsel to ensure my constitutional rights are protected.  You should have kept your promise and only served two terms. You sir have lost any moral and ethical ability to serve the public as mayor.

You spent over 10k last June in your failed attempt to refuse to swear me in. How much of the taxpayer money are you going to spend this time?

Jonathan

Jonathan W. Ebbeler
Councilman, Ward 1

On Mar 4, 2016, at 5:02 PM, Vernon Archer <varcher at gmail.com<mailto:varcher at gmail.com>> wrote:

Jonathan,

The council has not excused you for any of your absences, or anyone else for that matter.

If your claim is true (that they cannot do so retroactively) then they have no choice but to declare your seat vacant.  There is no valid reason for them to retroactively excuse you, but I believe the body can if it so chooses.

I think you should take your legal theories to the voters and see what they think.

If you go to court we will simply beat you there.

Vern

Oh yes, regarding timing--besides the fact that you are at twice what the Charter allows--I didn't want two vacancies at the same time and kept my peace until Ward 5 was settled. Council will consider Jey at this Monday's Executive Session.

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Jonathan W. Ebbeler <jebbeler at riverdaleparkmd.gov<mailto:jebbeler at riverdaleparkmd.gov>> wrote:
Vernon with all due respect, the council has adopted no official absence policy and to claim that informing council prior to meetings counts as unexcused based upon your sole definition and claim is patently legally misguided.

A council must either have an official policy in place to define excused vs unexcused absences or must take official action through a motion at the meeting for which absence occurred.

There was no such policy in place nor any motion made for prior absences. Why would there be a general practice of all of us to inform prior to meetings that we could not be in attendance if this was not our policy?  Why did this letter not go out on the second so called absence last fall Vs four days after I emailed you asking you to enforce ordinances that are enacted and are the law?

If the council wishes to define excused vs unexcused so be it. Pass the legislation - many legislative bodies have. But in absence of this, council is unable to retroactively invent the interpretation and the notion that it's legal is an attack on basic due process and will be met with appropriate legal action if necessary

On Mar 4, 2016, at 1:39 PM, Vernon Archer <varcher at gmail.com<mailto:varcher at gmail.com>> wrote:

Jonathan,

We appreciate your taking the time to respond to our concerns about attendance and its importance. However, it seems that you have some fundamental misunderstandings of council policy and the central point that is being made.

"Calling in" while courteous, is not excused. The council excuses absences, not one council member who is not finding the time to make the meetings.

The council has for at least the last 4 administrations dating back to Ann Furgeson counted "regular meetings" as the single monthly Legislative Meeting (minus August) as the sole, but absolute required meetings.

I will point out that if we were to grant you the special counting system that you ask and count all meetings including the one work session/special session in October then you would have missed 7 consecutive meetings as opposed to the 6 that are now in question.

Bringing up a meeting that did not happen due to a virtual natural disaster and saying you were "scheduled" to come is a valueless point.  Surely you were scheduled to make all 6 of the legislative meetings from September through February, but didn't actually get to any of them.

You have also brought up what you claim are the misdeeds of other council members. This is no excuse or validation and not worthy of response.

If the combination of your family, job, and just "life" make it too much to fulfill the duties of office you have but one honorable alternative.  Step down.  Save your family, yourself, and the town the needless embarrassment and trauma of removing you.

Sincerely,

Vernon

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://riverdale-park.org/pipermail/towntalk/attachments/20160304/dc14ae60/attachment.html>