[RP TownTalk] Change in Government
Alan K. Thompson
twacks at gmail.com
Thu Mar 10 11:36:38 UTC 2016
Dear Bob,
I'm sorry that I have not provided the detail you wish thus far.
I feel like TownTalk might not be the best place for us to discuss this -
I'm frustrated that I am not answering your questions (and spending a lot
of time and energy on it), and I can tell that you're frustrated at not
getting the answers you want (and I imagine you're spending a lot of time
and energy on it as well). I'll contact you off-list to arrange a meeting,
and will report back here with a summary of what we discussed, if that's
acceptable to you.
Best regards,
Alan
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 10:32 AM, bob smith <sfmc68 at verizon.net> wrote:
> Councilman Thompson,
> Thank you for your reply. This was not what I expected from you.
>
> On 4 March, I asked two simple questions, with the hope of gaining some
> understanding of this potential change in Town governance. You advised
> you would answer MY questions in that exchange in more detail. You have
> not done that in this response.
>
> In this reply You are addressing Councilman Ebbler's comments and not my
> questions of 4 March.
>
> Thank you for the additional information but I do read in this response
> that you accept this proposal as a done deal with your paragraph on the
> Mayor's new status. This concerns me.
>
> For a good while now, you have cited the fact of your diligent work on
> this proposed legislation. There have been rumors about it. The draft
> was presented before the town meeting and introduced.
>
> Detail has been and still is missing.
>
> I am focused on getting the information and opinions from everyone.
>
> Please, Review my questions and comments and consider those. I would
> like answers to the questions in order to understand this subject and as
> much of the implications to the town as possible.
>
> Respectfully,
> Bob Smith
> Ward 3
>
>
>
>
>
> On 3/8/16 11:47 PM, Alan K. Thompson wrote:
> > 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
> > <mailto: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
> > <mailto:TownTalk at riverdale-park.org>
> > > TownTalk-request at riverdale-park.org
> > <mailto: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
> > <mailto:TownTalk at riverdale-park.org>
> > TownTalk-request at riverdale-park.org
> > <mailto: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/20160310/e6e0a29d/attachment.html>
More information about the TownTalk
mailing list