[RP TownTalk] Change in Government
James Coleman
rpkfarmmkt at gmail.com
Thu Mar 17 02:33:37 UTC 2016
I am very appreciative of the long form answers to the questions due to the fact that the more specific answers were more useful to me as a resident.
Thanks, JC
> On Mar 16, 2016, at 8:33 PM, Alan K. Thompson <twacks at gmail.com> 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> 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> 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
>>> >
>>> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160316/7a4c4fd9/attachment.html>
More information about the TownTalk
mailing list