[RP TownTalk] Change in Government

Wed Mar 9 16:41:10 UTC 2016

Thank you Councilman Ebbeler for the specific budget information and the
data concerning expenditures.

This specific data adds to my knowledge base, and I hope brings to the
attention of the town residents, the point that I hope is clear - we the
citizens are the stakeholders in this town, and we need to know the
details of what this proposed change in governance will mean to us, both
on a daily basis and in the budget, and even more so, in our tax bill.

Thank again
bob smith
ward 3

On 3/9/16 9:37 AM, Jonathan Ebbeler wrote:
> Some interesting points were raised in Alan’s response that I believe
> merit further discussion. 
> 
>  
> 
> Alan is correct in that Section 205 allows for the Mayor to participate
> in debates currently (as they would going forward in the proposed voting
> member scheme), but so does Roberts Rules of Order.  However, Roberts
> Rules is clear what this means:
> 
>               -Chapter 12, Section 43 (Rule Against the Chair’s
> Participation in Debate): “If the presiding officer is a member of the
> society, he has – as an individual – the same rights in debate as any
> other member; BUT [JE emphasis added] the impartiality required of the
> chair in an assembly precludes his exercising these rights while he is
> presiding. Normally, especially in a large body, he should have nothing
> to say on the merits of pending questions.  On certain occasions – which
> should be extremely rare – the presiding officer may believe that a
> crucial factor relating to such a question has been overlooked and that
> his obligation as a member to call attention to the point outweighs his
> duty to preside at that time.  To participate in debate, he must
> relinquish the chair; and in such a case he should turn the chair
> over…….The presiding officer who relinquished the chair then should not
> return to it until the pending main question has been disposed of, since
> he has shown himself to be a partisan as far as that particular matter
> is concerned.  Indeed, unless a presiding officer is EXTREMELY SPARING
> [JE emphasis added] in leaving the chair to take part in debate, he may
> destroy members’ confidence in the impartiality of his approach to the
> task of presiding.”
> 
>  
> 
> In layman terms what this means is that the responsibility of heading a
> body and the decorum of that body require and expect an impartial chair
> at all times.  Although our Charter and Roberts Rules provides to
> mechanism to participate, one should not participate as chair or enter
> the fray due to a disagreement with Council opinions or out of opinion’s
> sake on a fact or question being actively debated; ONLY if that fact or
> question has been overlooked and then requires the chair to step down as
> chair and provide edification to the Council until the vote has been
> decided.  As has been my experience on Council, this has never happened.
> 
>  
> 
> I bring this point up because it is not a hypothetical.  In the last
> three terms this exact question has risen repeatedly with the chair
> actively lobbying against a Council policy position:
> 
> 1)      Cafritz Negotiations
> 
> 2)      Crescent City Oxygen Tank Enclosure
> 
> 3)      Quality of new home builds
> 
>  
> 
> To be fair, the Chair, more often than not HAS stayed out of the
> discussion, but when, as Chair they enter the debate (to the extent of
> having policy memos drafted by staff attempting to ‘show’ why a Council
> opinion is incorrect), predictably the loss of faith of impartiality has
> ensued.  I do not want to take the bet of what will happen when the
> Chair is added as a full-time voting member.
> 
>  
> 
> The town has been moving in this direction, despite at least my
> individual objections, from a budget and staffing point of view.  In the
> last couple budget cycles, the prepared budget insisted we needed an HR
> Manager as well as a CFO (chief financial officer).  These positions,
> fully loaded with benefit costs, are six-figure costs to the town.  We
> have yet, to my knowledge, employed an independent audit of our
> government functions to evaluate what our optimal staffing model
> ‘should’ look like.
> 
>  
> 
> I do ask the taxpayers though, if between the Mayor as our chief
> fiduciary and what we used to have as a part time contracted (no
> benefits) licensed CPA the total cost was in the neighborhood of
> ~$50,000 and got the job done, why would we change our form of
> government, employ a CFO, and spend an additional ~$100,000 for the sake
> of looking more like Greenbelt, a city 3 times our size? 
> 
>  
> 
> Fiscal Year Budget on Staff Salaries:
> 
> 2016 -$450,000
> 
> 2015 - $349,000
> 
>  
> 
> That is a 30% increase year to year in salary increases.  Our pension
> plan assumes single digit increases.  Our already woefully
> under/unfunded pension liability is now even more so.  Our actuaries
> assume, when they work with the town, that their assumptions are
> correct.  We aren’t even in the same ballpark.  The current pension
> valuation model that has been reported by our actuaries is likely to
> realistically be <50% (i.e. we only have assets to cover ½ of our
> current and future pension liabilities).  A healthy plan would be in the
> mid 80% range or more.
> 
>  
> 
> In full disclosure, one of my day jobs is providing HR, pension,
> payroll, and benefits management consulting services to clients which
> include commercial multi-national companies, federal agencies, small
> municipalities, medium sized County governments, and large state
> agencies.  My continued criticisms with our current staff structure and
> proposed future direction draws upon this 20+ years of operational
> experience.  For the last few years I have patiently waited for
> quantitative, independent analysis of the problem; this has not happened.
> 
>  
> 
> I continue to ask the same question – what problem are we trying to solve? 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 