[RP TownTalk] Change in Government

Thu Mar 17 04:00:30 UTC 2016

In every public policy discussion, the other side of the debate should be heard.  I have some policy disagreements with my colleague's opinions stated in the previous email.  I would also like to say and again call on Council to withdraw this legislation and hold a public hearing.  It seems entirely more appropriate of a path forward to listen to the voters before making such a drastic structural change.

*Q: Why is this position NEEDED? [Want and Need are two different things]*

There is much to agree with in my colleagues statements.  The mayor's job is demanding but it is also part of public service (and a $10,000 stipend) that asks of those who stand up for election to assume that level of responsibility.  Maybe a better question to ask is why do this midterm?  Moreover why don't we ask the general public first who they want to have executive authority.  To be blunt, our current Mayor and Council have likely been in office too long.  With some of us sitting in the seats for over a decade maybe it is time to tap successors and find the next generation willing to take the responsibilities up.  Any job after a while becomes challenging to keep energized about.  Why not let this be a ballot question or let the free market determine if the responsibilities are really too onerous for a part time mayor?  There are many, many examples locally in which municipalities have determined that the executive should remain in the Mayor.  This form of government is best suited for much larger cities.

This is a structural change that quite frankly is not 'needed' - with the right people in the right seats any structure can be successful.  This change will cost more over our current structure and well beyond the 10% pay raise of the Town Manager.

*Is it really needed right NOW?*

I respectfully disagree with the timeframe and the urgency claimed.  There is no evidence presented quantitative or qualitative other than a 'sky is falling' claim that Cafritz alone will cause the government to falter if we do not do this.  The timelines are not accurate.  What residential components will be online in 2 years?  Zero.  Whole Foods alone is 12 months out from being open.  The bridge which controls the developer's ability to build other components of the project is lagging.  The five year estimate is more likely but even then it is a mistake to restructure and reorganize in advance when you do not even know what challenges you are going to face in the first place.

Part of the justification is that we can afford to do this?  Can we?  We have not seen additional revenue from the Cafritz project and are busy spending revenues that we may or may not actually realize in the short term - we certainly won't over the next year or two.  Projects like these have long term not short term payoffs.

*Have any other options been evaluated?* *If so, where is that analysis and

how did this position result?*

The fact that quantitative analysis has not been done renders this difficult to support much less debate.  We have been told for the last 3+ years that a consultant would be engaged to evaluate independently the structure of our staff and make recommendations towards an efficient use of people as well as identify where we are over or understaffed (taking into account current and future needs).  Why was this never done in advance of this Ordinance?  It is difficult to debate points with people that have a vested interest in its outcome.  On Council this is a Conflict of Interest.

*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.] *

My colleague is well aware that certifications are not always worth the paper they are printed on.  There are fantastic examples of certified and uncertified professionals.  Most Town Admistrators have some level of higher education in public administration as well as certification.  Ask Enron how their Certified Public Accountants worked out for them.  I do agree that this effectively makes the mayor's job easier since all executive responsibilities are transferred to someone with no connection to the town.  I do not consider that a good thing.

*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?*

They will lose more of their paycheck in the form of higher taxes.  Transferring responsibilities over to paid employees means a higher cost to the taxpayers.  This point is not debateable - the level of cost certainly is but the sponsors of this bill owe to the public a projected cost breakout beyond statements of 'just a 10% increase in pay for one person.'  More staff means we need more office space.  The Town Hall renovation has spiked in projected cost to over 5mil without even breaking ground.  We could certainly rent office space for a small fraction of that or make do with the space we have if we were to maintain our current structure.

The new legislation also legally forbids Councilmembers from contacting department heads.  If a constituent has an issue that requires public works or police attention we are no longer able to contact the responsible parties directly.  We have to, by law, go through the town manager.  There is no guarantee that the response or attention to the issue will be expedient.  To me this is key and critical.  You have a 'professional' that is not elected and not directly responsible to the voters.  We all try to be exceptionally responsive to the people that elected since they get to vote on their level of satisfaction every two years.  Good luck to everyone trying to advocate for parking issues, or speed hump requests, or curb painting, or derelict cars left on the street, or any of the other routine requests we all get weekly.  They get whatever attention the professional manager sees fit.  When you hear someone saying that tasks will be balanced please translate that into policy implementation will take precedence over constituent issues that are triaged.

Good governance and effective management indicates that you should solve problems at their lowest levels.  I.e. don't call the governor and expect attention to a local problem when you can just deal with the mayor of a town.  Asking Councilmembers to only put constituent requests etc. through the town manager is a recipe for a bureaucratic quagmire.  I am sure it sounds great in theory - the professional gets to triage how to spend staff time - but in a small town constituents expect the personal service that the Mayor and Council have always provided.  In the future expect your Councilmember to say 'just call the police or public works yourself you will get a quicker response.'

*Will the change result in increased staff, in addition to the new role?*

How can we in good conscience consider this proposal without the independent due diligence of creating staff, facility, and costs estimates in a 5 and 10 year outlook.  Since it was not done we are left spitballing the changes.  Clearly a town manager, that the Mayor claims is already overburdened, is going to delegate the executive tasks inherited to newly created positions.  Every staff position we create has $100,000+ implications when looking at salary and fully loaded benefits.  We already have a massively underfunded pension plan - we are going down a dangerous path without having real budget estimates created

*What are the fully loaded cost projections versus the current budget

projections?*

Salary increases for one position are one thing, the true cost of moving towards this model, towards current and future staff hires are another.  How can we make informed choices when hard money figures are not being provided.  A consultant could have been engaged to evaluate the town, to project the costs, to provide the information needed.  Make no mistake about it - in 5 years we have raised the cost of administrative government budgets over 58% from 2012 to 2016.  Someone in town government owes a true projected cost, a true potential staffing model to the public.  There are many costs not being disclosed.  A 10% increase in salary does not include the fully loaded cost of the employee (benefits/pension plan).  Nor does it include things like operating budgets for the new staff.

I can throw projections out but they are just as specious as saying this structure only equates to a 10% increase in one staff's salary.  When information that is needed is not being provided I cry foul.  You have to look at the total picture when evaluating operational cost to any organization.  There are many costs of hiring someone beyond just a salary.

*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]*

If anyone has ever had the pleasure of dealing with City staff at College Park etc. they will know why I dislike this model.  Our staff knows the residents; the 'professional' staff in cities like College Park is anything but.  We should not be modeling ourselves after cities - we are ¼ the size of places like College Park, Hyattsville, and Greenbelt.

*Is this position already a done deal?*

I do hope that this is true.  I am dismayed that something as important as a public hearing on this ordinance was not held in advance of triggering the clock before a vote is required.  If you look at how we handled Cafritz, another issue that has the potential of changing the town, we held meeting after meeting after meeting.  We had a very public debate before ever considering the question officially.  I only wish the same was done here.

For the record I would like to say that I know my colleague has the best of intentions, I just think there is a bigger picture that is being missed

Respectfully,

Jonathan

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://riverdale-park.org/pipermail/towntalk/attachments/20160317/f0a7723b/attachment.html>