[RP TownTalk] Change in Government

Wed Mar 9 20:57:23 UTC 2016

I am watching this thread closely so I too, can get information to pose any questions I may have as we get closer to the meeting to discuss this proposal.  Right now, I am just listening and letting everything settle.  However something stuck out at me like a red flag:  In Sarah's response below, regarding a real estimate, she states the council may be unable to give a figure because of salary confidentially.  Are salaries confidential?  I would think that the people paying the salaries (all town residents who pay taxes) have a right to question and know exactly what salary we pay  to anyone working for the town.  Am I right in thinking that the Town Administrators salary plus 10% would be the new salary of the Town Manager?  And would the new Town Manager need an administrator assistant and what would the salary be for that?  Would we have to have 2 positions if we create the position of Town Manager?
This proposal has many avenues for discussion.  Perhaps we should have a special meeting just for this one discussion?
Thanks to all who are participating. Residents and Town Officials.  This really helps.

-----Original Message-----
From: bob smith <sfmc68 at verizon.net>
To: Sarah Wayland <sarah.wayland at gmail.com>; TownTalk <towntalk at riverdale-park.org>
Sent: Wed, Mar 9, 2016 2:36 pm
Subject: Re: [RP TownTalk] Change in Government

Sarah, Councilman Thompson, et al,
Thank you for taking the time constructing your response based on those
of the council and mayor and for adding your opinions.

Apologies, I do not use rich text or other color add-ons for email.

As I stated this morning and on 4 March, I do not have all my questions
formulated because there has been insufficient information. I am trying
to get sufficient information to determine if I have more questions.

You are correct that quantitative answers have not been provided in
sufficient detail to evaluate the proposed changes.

I have read the proposed charter changes as well as the current charter.
I am focused on the proposed changes.  I have not seen or heard of an
overall plan to justify the change. Yes, work load facts and speculation
on workload portend challenges in the current structure.

Question - Is there an overall plan?
Questions - If there is, what is the concept? what are the details?
Question - If there is a plan, How well thought out is this plan?
Question - What alternatives to this specific change in governance been
considered?
Question - If other alternatives have not been considered, why is there
a rush to change the governance process so hastily, with out the
socialization of the proposal before introduction as my memory serves,
was done in the process of changing the name of the town?

Right now my questions are trying to elicit hard facts and fact based
projections. Not warm fuzzy language that I have seen in most instances.

In another message, not quoted here verbatim, Mayor Archer cites the
increased workload and indicates -as I read his response - that this is
the reason for this need to change the governance policy.

While councilman Thompson has said he does not think there will be more
than a 10% difference with the change from town administrator to town
manager, that appears to be a fuzzy guess based on information provided.

Question - What is that guess based on?

These are my current set of questions.  I may have additional finer
detail questions as information becomes available.
Respectfully,
bob smith
ward 3

On 3/9/16 12:19 PM, Sarah Wayland wrote:
> Hi Bob, 
> 
> I was having a hard time figuring out exactly what your questions were,
> so below I've extracted what I think you are asking, attempted to answer
> the ones I can, and highlighted what I think are the outstanding
> unanswered questions. 
> 
> If you have more questions, please just ask them again. Our elected
> officials are trying very hard to be responsive, but there have been a
> LOT of e-mails on this topic, so it will be helpful if you can simply
> re-iterate the questions you want answered so it is easy for them to
> provide the information you need. 
> 
> I am basing my answers on the conversation so far, as well as reading
> the proposed changes to the legislation
> (here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/j5gnajmlos68p0c/Charter%20Amendment%20Resolution%202016-CR-XX%20Town%20Manager%20Form%20of%20Government%20For%20Introduction.pdf?dl=0) and
> Vernon's Mayor's Report
> (http://riverdaleparkmd.info/Crier/Mar%202016%20Crier_jeb.pdf). 
> 
> 1) What is the gain for the town in having town manager and what does
> the town (or what do the people of the town and the council as elected
> reps) lose in having a town manager?
> 
> From Alan: "The reason we have ... department heads... 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."
> 
> [Editor's Note: Below, Vernon refers to a CEO of the town in his Town
> Crier article. The proposed legislation does not refer to a CEO, but
> rather to a town manager. Currently, the "CEO" is the mayor.]
> 
> From Vernon: "Today all of those functions [Chief of Police, Head of
> Public Works, Financial Officer] are professionalized and there is
> throughout the government significantly more emphasis on
> professionalization, training and continuing education. In my opinion
> progressing to a form of government where the CEO is a
> professional manager trained and vetted to the highest standards is a
> logical next step in the same direction I have been leading the
> government for a decade now. It will benefit the town to have a CEO who
> is has a formal education in managing public institutions and who is a
> full-time exempted employee reporting and responsible directly to the
> town council and thereby all residents. I cannot make any claim to be
> any such professional manager and neither were any of my predecessors
> (going back at least several decades). Both they and I have done quality
> work overall, however, I have to be honest and admit that a trained
> professional will likely do a better job of managing the town day in and
> day out.
> 
> "The need for a professional CEO is needed more today than it was a
> decade or two ago, and the demands will only increase in the coming
> years. As the town grows to include ever more residents and commercial
> activities the complexity of providing services will only
> increase. State and even Federal regulatory demands have increased
> significantly in the last several decades and it seems that trend will
> increase. Working effectively with other regional entities like
> utilities, planning agencies, and the county government are growing
> increasingly complex and require full time, professional attention as well."
> 
> I'm not sure what other information you want. Can you clarify exactly
> why you don't think these statements answer the question? (I'm really
> just confused; I'd be grateful if you could help me understand what you
> are asking.)
> 
> 2) Have any other options been evaluated both qualitatively and and
> quantitatively?
> 
> The quantitative aspect of this question has not been answered, as far
> as I can tell. I believe the answers excerpted above describe the
> qualitative impact. 
> 
> 3) What will that cost, in real dollars, fully loaded benefits and so on?  
> 
> From Alan's message: "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%."
> 
> Perhaps our elected officials can provide a real number estimate? (They
> may not be able to, as salary information may be confidential.) But
> perhaps an estimate of the percentage increase in the budget will suffice?
> 
> 4) Does this show a longer range plan to move Riverdale Park to City
> status rather than a Town?
> 
> I see no evidence of this, though I don't know that it matters. In
> Maryland, there is no legal difference between the two (see
> http://www.mdmunicipal.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/1677).
> 
> -Sarah
> 

_______________________________________________
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/20160309/3797627e/attachment.html>