[RP TownTalk] Change in Government

Wed Mar 9 17:51:38 UTC 2016

Jonathan and all interested,

I don't have time to wade through all your comments, but one important
point is our Charter supersedes Roberts rules and the charter clearly
states: Section 205:... "The mayor may take part in all discussions but
shall have no vote except in the case of a tie vote". If you don't want the
mayor to speak in all discussions you have your own charter amendment to
propose.

Also, regarding the addition of a professional financial officer I simply
say that had you attended any of the 3 meetings in May and June when the
budget was discussed you might be better informed as we discussed it then
at significant length.  There will be meeting in the future and I'm happy
to help you get caught up from missing 73% of the meetings held over the
last year.

I also think it is important for the public to know that there was also a
500% (a* very* conservative estimate) increase in the work load for
business licenses handled by General Government because of your signature
piece of legislation (2013-OR-06) that radically increased the
reporting/paperwork requirements for business licenses.  If you mandate
work you are also mandating paying competent individuals to do the work.

What the burden on businesses is I can't truly estimate, but you must find
it somewhat burdensome as you have yet to comply with the new rules for
your personal business.

Respectfully,

Vern

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Jonathan Ebbeler <
jebbeler at efusionconsulting.com> 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
>
>

-- 
Vernon Archer, Mayor
Town of Riverdale Park, Maryland
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://riverdale-park.org/pipermail/towntalk/attachments/20160309/bd2295a8/attachment.html>