[RP TownTalk] Change in Government

Thu Mar 17 11:19:03 UTC 2016

Hi Bruce and all,

There are 4 public meetings where this issue will be discussed and open to
public comment already scheduled--the next two work sessions and the next
two Legislative sessions prior to the absolute soonest a vote can be held
on May 2.

It is completely 100% false that public input and discussion is being
halted in favor of discussion over Town Talk.

Bruce, I do agree with your post last week that said--I'm
paraphrasing--"calm down" and follow a public process.

A dedicated public hearing or special work session exclusively on this
topic can easily be added if it appears that the 4 meetings already
scheduled are insufficient.

Vern

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 6:53 AM, Bruce Wernek <bruce.wernek at verizon.net>
wrote:

> All
>
> I'm with Jonathan on this.  This issue shouldn't be worked out over Town
> Talk.  Jonathan's request for public hearings is not unreasonable.  Can the
> Mayor or Council please explain the why public hearings are not being held
> prior to the vote?  I'd certainly like to participate in a forum more
> formal than exchanging emails.  They are too easy to ignore and aren't part
> of any public record.
>
> Friends and neighbors, I urge you to contact your representatives on the
> Town Council and let your feelings be known.  I'm paying enough taxes and I
> don't want to pay any more for something which may not be necessary.
>
> Bruce
>
>
> On 03/17/16, Jonathan Ebbeler<jebbeler at efusionconsulting.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>

-- 
Vernon Archer, Mayor
Town of Riverdale Park, Maryland
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://riverdale-park.org/pipermail/towntalk/attachments/20160317/ec9fca00/attachment.html>