[RP TownTalk] Change in Government

Wed Mar 9 05:12:52 UTC 2016

Dear Bob,

I wanted to touch on a few of the points raised by Jonathan about this
legislation, and see if that could help you come to a decision about your
support for it.

Before I do that, though, I need to answer your big question - why is this
legislation needed? I'll answer you with another question (or several): why
do we have a Director of Public Works?  Why can't the mayor supervise the
department?  Why do we have a Police Chief?  Can't the mayor supervise them
too?

The reason we have those department heads, as Mayor Archer stated in his
Town Crier article this month,  is that they have more time (because they
are not trying to do those jobs at the same time as their "day" job) and
more training, because they are professionals.  As the demands from ever
more complicated regulations (government and otherwise), personnel rules,
etc., mount it becomes harder and harder for an ordinary town resident who
has been elected to serve as mayor to meet those demands at the same time
as holding down a job and meeting family obligations.

It is definitely possible for the mayor to simply delegate many
responsibilities to the Town Administrator (and other department heads), as
I honestly think has been done at some level for the entire time I have
been watching or participating in town government (more than 20 years).  I
think it's a better idea to explicitly have those roles and
responsibilities spelled out in our Charter so that there is a consistent
policy of who is responsible for what as administrations and councils come
and go. The proposed Charter amendments include these changes.

Now to move to some of Jonathan's points.....

His discussion of at-large election of council members, whether to have a
mayor or not, and council/mayor salaries are all extremely important and
difficult questions.  When I was reading the charters of other
municipalities, I noted that Greenbelt (which has the most pure version of
a council-manager form of government of any I read) has at-large elections
of council members, does not have direct election of a mayor, and (though I
previously stated that I thought the council member who received the most
votes served as mayor) the mayor is chosen by their council.  Their city
manager serves an indefinite term, and may only be removed for cause
(though I think the cause doesn't have to be much).  I considered going
more in that direction but decided that at least for what I was submitting
I would stay closer to our current form of government.

I'm a little confused by his concern about the lack of an
"employer-employee relationship" under the Council-Manager form of
government; I'm hoping he will clarify that in his future, longer
discussion.

I'll focus first on a significant part of that relationship - getting
fired. Under our current charter, only the mayor may initiate removal of
the Town Administrator, but removal requires council approval.  Under the
new charter, the council as a whole must vote to remove the Town Manager,
but that action can be initiated by *any* council member.  Either way, a
majority of the council must vote to remove, and either way, if someone
initiates removal, a smart town administrator/manager will begin looking
for a new job.

Similarly, the council currently establishes policy (through the budget and
through resolutions and ordinances), and will continue to do so.  The mayor
currently interprets and prioritizes council policies. Under the proposed
changes to a system with a Town Manager, the council may have to be more
detailed in statements of policy, but the town manager can certainly
informally or formally request clarification from the council.

Finally, Jonathan stated that "you can call your Councilmember and/or the
Mayor" to have an issue resolved. Under our current system, the Town
Administrator responds to such requests from Town Council members (who are
not her direct supervisor). This will still be possible under the new
Council Manager form of government; the power of council members are
enhanced over what exists now.

Regarding the mayor's new status as a full member of the council, the major
difference is that he or she can vote on any question.  The charter (§ 205)
currently allows the mayor to fully participate in discussions, which is
common under the "small board" version of Robert's Rules (and our town
council qualifies as small in that way).  Robert's Rules also generally
*assume* that the chair of a meeting is a full member of the council, but
that as chair they choose to *refrain* from voting unless their vote will
make a difference, and *refrain* from participating in discussions unless
they feel that it is vitally important (and, under the "large assembly"
rules they are required to hand off chairing the meeting to another member
until the question on which they comment is decided).  There are a lot of
layers to Robert's Rules, and a knowledgeable council will be able, easily,
to check the power of a mayor with a strong personality, assuming that a
majority of the council disagrees with the mayor.

Finally, I don't think there will be a significant budget impact - under
the legislation there will be a Town Manager, but no Town Administrator. I
don't think the salary difference between the two should be more than 10%.

Bob, please let me know if I have missed answering your questions
(re-sending, just to me, any messages that have unanswered questions is
fine).  I've tried to address all of them that I've seen but I may have
missed something and want to be sure you get the answers you want.

Best regards,

Alan

On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 7:52 PM, bob smith <sfmc68 at verizon.net> wrote:

> Councilman,
> Thank you. You have hit on a number of my concerns very concisely.
> You understand my questions about the larger picture. Excellent.
>
> I am hoping the rest of my questions in the last exchanges will be
> answered and the background thinking explained in the manner that you
> have taken the time to accomplish.
>
> I don't know the thinking of the entire council on the need for a CEO
> and the budget impact immediately and over time. I am hoping they will
> share that information with the town in detail.
>
> Again, thank you for responding with what you are aware of and clearly
> stating that you have a mixed opinion - I think with more detail maybe I
> can get to one side or the other of the issue.
>
> Respectfully
> bob smith
> ward 3
>
>
>
> On 3/8/16 5:52 PM, Jonathan Ebbeler wrote:
> > Bob –
> >
> >
> >
> > I have a much longer response planned but will likely break it out in
> > more readable sections.
> >
> >
> >
> > I have a mixed opinion about the change in government.  In general
> > terms, this is the preferred model that most town administrators want –
> > i.e. to move to a Council-Manager form of government.  The
> > ‘professional’ gets to make staffing calls, budget preparation etc.  Ask
> > anyone who has been to our budget hearings – very little is actually
> > changed between the draft budget and the final budget.  The fights are
> > usually around staff additions since they have tremendous impacts to our
> > current and more importantly future budgets (we have a very rich pension
> > benefit but very unfunded pension liability).
> >
> >
> >
> > In theory a town manager would be above the fray to administer the
> > direction of the town and the Council’s primary role would be to
> > administer policy.  A major critique of this form of government is that
> > the manager is expected to understand intrinsically the needs, wants of
> > a community they most likely will not live in.  Managers have no direct
> > accountability to the voters and more importantly it is often difficult
> > to obtain policy leadership with a Council-manager form of government.
> >
> >
> >
> > What is lost significantly is the lack of any real employee-employer
> > relationship which is my mind is a significant check and balance of
> > power.  Currently the town administrator reports to the mayor and has
> > direct accountability from an operational level to that position.  If
> > you or anyone in town has an issue with say trash collection you can
> > call your Councilmember and/or the Mayor and there is a direct
> > accountability and a constituent service provided.
> >
> >
> >
> > When contemplating this form of government you have to ask yourself if
> > it would also make sense to go to an at-large Council rather than wards
> > if we are going to remove the system of checks and balances.  More to
> > the point perhaps a mayor shouldn’t be elected as a seat but determined
> > by the most number of votes.  If we are going to discuss a decrease in
> > responsibility than of course it is only fair to taxpayers to decrease
> > Council/Mayor salaries commensurately as well.
> >
> >
> >
> > It also moves a mayor into a position where they get to vote and debate
> > vs. what is required by Roberts Rules of Order currently (an impartial
> > chair).  So imagine a situation (hypothetically of course) where there
> > was significant policy disagreement between the Mayor and another
> > Councilmember.  Currently the Mayor is required by our rules to stay out
> > of the discussion and only votes in a tie.  Going forward it isn’t hard
> > to imagine some strong personalities running for seats on Council that
> > may have a difference of opinion that will unlikely lead to a harmonious
> > experience for the rest of the Council.  It is difficult enough to find
> > a policy direction with 6 people.  Sometimes more isn’t necessarily
> better
> >
> >
> >
> > A fundamental question I have is what is so broken that the Council now
> > feels this is the only path forward? I have seen justifications of that
> > we are growing as a town etc.  Understood and agree but that doesn’t
> > define the need in any quantitative form or fashion.  A system of
> > governance does not in of itself solve problems nor does trying to hire
> > your way out of.  I would like to understand what problem it is exactly
> > we are trying to solve.
> >
> >
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> > Jonathan W. Ebbeler
> >
> > Councilman, Ward 1
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TownTalk mailing list
> > To post to the list, send mail to TownTalk at riverdale-park.org
> > TownTalk-request at riverdale-park.org is for automated subscription
> processing only
> > http://riverdale-park.org/mailman/listinfo/towntalk
> >
> > For more information about Riverdale Park, visit
> http://www.riverdaleparkmd.info
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> TownTalk mailing list
> To post to the list, send mail to TownTalk at riverdale-park.org
> TownTalk-request at riverdale-park.org is for automated subscription
> processing only
> http://riverdale-park.org/mailman/listinfo/towntalk
>
> For more information about Riverdale Park, visit
> http://www.riverdaleparkmd.info
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://riverdale-park.org/pipermail/towntalk/attachments/20160309/4fdf5f23/attachment.html>