[RP TownTalk] Change in Government
bob smith
sfmc68 at verizon.net
Thu Mar 17 01:16:38 UTC 2016
Thank you Alan, this does answer my questions in detail.
Yes, I do support the legislation.
thanks again for the time and detail.
bob
On 3/16/16 8:33 PM, Alan K. Thompson wrote:
> As promised, I met with Bob (over the weekend) and we discussed the
> legislation being considered at length (he told me he had met with Mayor
> Archer previously). Also as promised, I'm providing a summary of the
> questions and answers from that discussion. Hopefully it isn't too
> long; I have short answers and longer answers to each question,
> depending on the level of detail you want. I hope that this material
> will be published in the April Town Crier, but either way you can read
> it here!
>
> After reading a draft of this summary, Bob said that I had answered his
> questions and that he now supported the legislation.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Alan
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Our current form of government is one where the mayor is the person
> supervising town employees and enforcing local law while staying
> compliant with county, state, and federal law. This legislation, if
> adopted, will change our form of government to one where a new position,
> the town manager, will take on most of those duties (and replace the
> current town administrator position). The mayor will retain his
> position representing all residents of the town, facilitating the
> actions of the council, and serving as an ambassador at important
> meetings and functions.
>
>
>
> Please see the Ward 2 report in the February 2016 Town Crier and the
> Mayor’s Report in the March 2016 Town Crier for more details about this
> legislation. As always contact the mayor, me, or your council
> representative if you have unanswered questions or want to let us know
> your opinions on the legislation.
>
> * *
>
> *Q: Why is this position NEEDED? [Want and Need are two different things]*
>
>
>
> _Short answer:_ This position is needed to allow the essential actions
> of government to be performed while preserving a part-time mayor’s
> ability to provide leadership to the council and represent the entire
> town on the council.
>
>
>
> _Longer answer:_ The Mayor’s job is currently quite demanding, and it is
> difficult for him to perform the two very different sides of his job:
> (1) ensuring the proper execution of town government (police services,
> trash pickup, infrastructure maintenance, debt service, budget
> preparation and spending monitoring) and (2) representing the entire
> town (not just a single ward) on the council, and working with the
> council members to build consensus, negotiate disagreements, and bring
> important town-wide issues to the council (issues that may not be
> important to an individual ward, but as town-wide issues that require
> prompt attention).
>
>
>
> It is probably too much to demand of a part-time mayor to perform all of
> these duties (and the demands will only be larger when the Riverdale
> Park Station/Cafritz development, with more than 2,000 new residents, is
> completed). (2), above, cannot be handled by paid/professional staff,
> so a solution is to transfer the duties under (1) to professional staff,
> as is done in many nearby municipalities.
>
>
>
> *Is it really needed right NOW?*
>
>
>
> _Short Answer:_ It is needed relatively soon, in the next 2-5 years, and
> it is better to make the transition before it becomes an emergency.
>
>
>
> _Longer Answer:_ The demands on the mayor are very high, and are
> anticipated by those of us in town government to get higher as the
> Riverdale Park Station project comes to completion. While we could wait
> until closer to that event, we are likely to discover unanticipated
> issues in the transition to a new division of duties in government, and
> working those issues out is much easier if we are doing that before the
> number of residents and businesses dramatically increase. It is better
> to be proactive than reactive.
>
>
>
> *Have any other options been evaluated?* *If so, where is that analysis
> and how did this position result?*
>
>
>
> _Short Answer:_ In addition to this proposal, we have qualitatively
> discussed the options of doing nothing to change the system, having a
> full-time paid mayor, and allowing the mayor to delegate duties and
> decisions to department heads. This proposal seemed to us to be the
> best alternative.
>
>
>
> _Longer Answer:_ All of us on the council are constantly thinking about
> ways to improve town government, and having informal discussions about
> it (in addition to the focused discussions we have with other municipal
> officials at Maryland Municipal League meetings). The concern about the
> mayor’s executive duties being excessive has come up on occasion, even
> in previous administrations, and until now we have opted for the easiest
> solution – doing nothing. With the businesses in the Riverdale Park
> Station project about to open, we feel it is time to start taking
> action. (Not to mention the low-level discussions about development in
> M Square and at the planned Purple Line stations).
>
>
>
> One option we discussed was making the mayor’s job full-time. A
> full-time mayor would need to be paid for full-time work, so it would be
> expensive (and we didn’t think we would be able to eliminate the town
> administrator’s job, as the town administrator has knowledge and
> training that a popularly-elected mayor wouldn’t necessarily have. At
> the very least, we thought the town would need a lot more legal and
> financial advice to make it work, so the budget would probably go up by
> (at best) almost a full-time salary.
>
>
>
> A third option, which I think has been going on at some level for all of
> the last four mayors (and probably before) was that a lot of duties
> assigned to the mayor have been delegated to the town administrator and
> department heads. This could continue (with even more duties delegated)
> but it seemed better to have the /actual/ duties and responsibilities
> match the /documented/ duties and responsibilities – if we are going to
> have a government that operates as a council-manager form of government,
> the charter should say that it’s a council-manager form of government.
>
>
>
> *What is the gain for the town in having a newly created town manager
> position? [The position description lightens the load of the Mayor and
> adds a certified professional manager.] *
>
> * *
>
> _Short Answer: _A mayor who can focus on the leadership goals of his or
> her office, and let day-to-day management decisions be handled by
> professional staff.
>
>
>
> _Longer Answer: _As discussed above, the mayor currently has two
> different jobs. The first is managing day-to-day operations, a duty that
> many other municipalities have with great success given to a town
> manager. The second is serving as leader of the council (in all meanings
> of that word) and representative of the entire town (not just a single
> ward) on the council and to the outside world, a duty that is best
> performed by an elected official. Having a town manager will allow the
> mayor to focus his or her time and energy on the second job, which will
> result in town-wide issues such as economic development, business
> regulations, transportation, etc., to be addressed more quickly and
> thoroughly by the council. (My phone will be ringing more often, I’m sure!)
>
>
>
> In addition to the mayor focusing on an essential leadership job, town
> staff will be able to perform their jobs without having to work around
> the schedule of the mayor’s day job. Currently if a decision has to be
> made by the chief executive, town staff has to wait until the mayor has
> time to review the issue and get back to them, which could take many
> hours. With a full-time manager in the office, this lag time will be
> eliminated, and town staff will be able to respond to issues more
> quickly. __
>
>
>
> *What does the town (or what do the people of the town and the council
> as elected representatives) lose in having a town manager and recasting
> the role of Mayor?*
>
> * *
>
> _Short Answer:_ There is the potential for people to feel a modest loss
> of direct accountability and responsiveness from town government, the
> council will need to be more careful and thorough in the policies we
> create.__
>
> * *
>
> _Longer Answer:_ From the perspective of the residents, there may be a
> small loss of direct accountability. The mayor is currently the chief
> executive, and residents can talk to him directly if they think
> something is not going right. Under the council-manager form of
> government, residents would need to talk to the town manager, and the
> town manager answers to the council (including mayor) and not to the
> residents.
>
>
>
> Practically speaking, though, this change will be small. The mayor
> currently works mainly through his department heads who must evaluate
> and prioritize how they will act on resident requests. Don’t get me
> wrong – our department heads are currently VERY responsive to requests
> from the mayor (and council members), but they do have to balance all of
> the tasks we would like them to do against the central mission of their
> departments.
>
>
>
> Because the town manager will be interpreting and implementing council
> policies in day-to-day operations, the council will need to be clear in
> those policies; currently the mayor must interpret policies in a manner
> consistent with the will of the voters. Under the new council-manager
> form of government, the town manager will have to interpret those
> policies, so we on the council will have to work harder to create
> well-defined policies.
>
>
>
> Finally, if the proposed change is adopted, I’m essentially certain that
> there will be unanticipated issues that crop up during the transition,
> which will be annoying to both residents and council members as we work
> through them.
>
>
>
> *Will the change result in increased staff, in addition to the new role?*
>
> * *
>
> _Short Answer: _The changes include the possibility of new staff, but
> this is not likely to happen soon, and is not in any way required by the
> legislation.
>
>
>
> _Longer Answer:_ Our Town Attorney, who works for multiple
> municipalities, recommended that we include the possibility of some new
> positions (or delegation of some town manager authorities and duties to
> certain positions) in the charter as part of these changes. At this
> time, we have no plans to add those staff members, but if they are
> needed in the future as the town grows the possibility will be there.
>
>
>
> *What are the increases in cost that come with additional staff?*
>
>
>
> _Answer:_ We have no plans for additional staff; we are only changing
> the town administrator position into a town manager position.
>
>
>
> *What are the fully loaded cost projections versus the current budget
> projections?*
>
>
>
> _Short Answer:_ I would expect the town manager to be paid perhaps 10 %
> more than the town administrator, with similar benefits. We won’t know
> for sure until we have candidates.
>
>
>
> _Longer Answer:_ Based mainly on knowledge of the current town
> administrator’s salary and research into town manager salaries paid in
> nearby municipalities (Greenbelt in particular) but also on
> conversations with other elected officials, the pay for town managers is
> only modestly higher than our current town administrator is paid. All
> town employees are offered the same health care and retirement options,
> so those costs will be in line with the salary difference. This will
> result in a roughly 0.2% increase in our town’s budget.
>
>
>
> *Does this show a longer-range plan to move Riverdale Park to City
> status rather than a Town? [The population of the town is listed as
> 7,266 as of July 2014]*
>
> * *
>
> _Short Answer:_ No.
>
>
>
> _Longer Answer:_ There’s no legal distinction in Maryland between towns
> and cities – it’s just what the municipality chooses to call itself. In
> terms of services that we provide, we are already providing similar
> services to the City of Hyattsville and the City of College Park. We
> know we are growing, and need to be ready for the changes that come with
> growth, but I don’t see the character of the town changing for existing
> neighborhoods.
>
>
>
> *Is this position already a done deal?*
>
>
>
> _Answer:_ No. If this proposal doesn’t meet the expectations of the
> citizens of Riverdale Park, we can amend it to meet those expectations,
> but if people don’t want the changes, we won’t pass them. All of us on
> the council take representative government seriously, and we will vote
> as our constituents want us to.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:36 AM, Alan K. Thompson <twacks at gmail.com
> <mailto:twacks at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> 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
> <mailto: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>
> > <mailto: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>
> > <mailto:TownTalk at riverdale-park.org
> <mailto:TownTalk at riverdale-park.org>>
> > > TownTalk-request at riverdale-park.org
> <mailto:TownTalk-request at riverdale-park.org>
> > <mailto: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>
> > <mailto:TownTalk at riverdale-park.org
> <mailto:TownTalk at riverdale-park.org>>
> > TownTalk-request at riverdale-park.org
> <mailto:TownTalk-request at riverdale-park.org>
> > <mailto: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
> >
> >
>
>
>
More information about the TownTalk
mailing list