[RP TownTalk] T-Ball or Softball Organized Teams

[erika wilson]

I have looked into this extensively and it really depends on what time of year you are looking to play and what sort of experience you want.
As of last year, most of the opportunities around here were clinics focused on skill development. They did not play games with other teams. Unfortunately, they were also chronically under-registered. We signed up for several of the local t-ball classes through the winter and spring but all were cancelled due to low turnout. Furthermore, last year both the Berwyn Heights and Greenbelt boys and girls clubs did not sponsor t-ball/baseball teams b/c of a lack of coaches and interested kids.
Last summer our 5-year old played in the Takoma Park T-ball league (for rising K through 1st). It was excellent. The coaches were great, it was very well run, and he had a great time. He plans to play again this year. Practices and games are on Saturday morning (9-9:30 practice, 9:30-10:30 game for example) in Takoma Park. While most of the kids are from TP and its a bit of a haul to get to the games, there were lots of Riverdale, Hyattsville, and UP families who participated and my son was on a team with several PG County kids. I definitely recommend it. Warning: the league has a very limited number of slots and is extremely popular and fills up fast so make sure you know when to sign up. For more info: http://www.takomaparkmd.gov/recreation/youth. Contact Bradley: Bradleyw at takomagov.org. 
I recently found out about a spring league of coach pitch softball for 6 year olds through a Takoma Park Silver Spring league. Looks like they have other opportunities for older kids: http://www.tpssbaseball.org/Default.aspx?tabid=169246. I do not have experience with this league but know a family who did this last year and they recommend it.
Feel free to contact me if you have more questions.-Erika

> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 16:28:58 -0400
> From: Dannielle Glaros <dmglaros at gmail.com>
> To: Dwight Holmes <dwightrholmes at gmail.com>
> Cc: "towntalk at riverdale-park.org" <towntalk at riverdale-park.org>
> Subject: Re: [RP TownTalk] T-Ball or Softball Organized Teams
> Message-ID: <DD535E77-6097-4624-975F-05B6C68F2193 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> 
> The best resources are Berwyn Heights  boys and girls as well as Greenbelt. We have used both.
> 
> Dannielle Glaros
> 
> Sent from an iPhone.
> 
> 
> > On Mar 16, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Dwight Holmes <dwightrholmes at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Jenny -
> > Hi, and welcome to TownTalk! :)
> > 
> > It doesn't look like either softball or t-ball have been discussed on this list in the 11 years we've lived here. I just checked the Hyattsville HOPE list (which has a much bigger subscriber list and is generally a good resource for such questions) and the only thing I see there are requests like yours - but no substantive replies!
> > 
> > As a lifelong, avid baseball fan, this makes me very sad!
> > 
> > 
> >> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Jenny Rodousakis <rogan123 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hello All!
> >> 
> >> 
> >> I was looking for some information regarding T-Ball or Softball Teams in Riverdale or College Park. My daughters are aged 6 and 4 and we are interested in joining some teams. Does anyone have any information about organized sports teams in Riverdale for children? I have tried to research this topic and have asked around, but have not found anything. If anyone has any information about this or knows of any teams, I would love to hear about it!
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Thank you so much!
> >> 
> >> Jenny Rodousakis
> >> 
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://riverdale-park.org/pipermail/towntalk/attachments/20160316/57c96cb6/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 20:33:13 -0400
> From: "Alan K. Thompson" <twacks at gmail.com>
> To: Bob Smith <sfmc68 at verizon.net>
> Cc: TownTalk <towntalk at riverdale-park.org>
> Subject: Re: [RP TownTalk] Change in Government
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAM2KSRj5_msDikP=hkWEEYkctcyeW78WuhPTnaCw6KpB71vOGg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> 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
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://riverdale-park.org/pipermail/towntalk/attachments/20160316/4e3b31a9/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 01:11:25 +0000 (UTC)
> From: Todd Whitehead <twhitehead76 at yahoo.com>
> To: Towntalk Riverdale <towntalk at riverdale-park.org>
> Subject: [RP TownTalk] And now for something completely different
> Message-ID:
> 	<1106347663.1640346.1458177085085.JavaMail.yahoo at mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> It?s time for the 38th annual?.?University Park Children?s Clothing Co-opGently Used Clothing and Toys for Children?Saturday, March 19th from 10:00am - 12:00pm?University United Methodist Church
> 3621 Campus Drive,College Park, Maryland 20740
> Quality "pre-washed and gently worn" clothing for children from tots to teens will be available. Featured also will be seasonal clothing and accessories, swimwear, raincoats and boots, books, toys, sports equipment, baby/layette equipment, furniture, gear, and maternity items.
> 
> Cash only.
> 
> Questions? Email Becky at univparkchildrensclothingsale at gmail,com??En Espa?ol:?Es hora de que la 38a anual??University Park Cooperativa de Ropa de Ni?osVenta de Jugetes y Ropa de Ni?os?sabado, 19 de marzo, 10:00am ? 12:00pm?University United Methodist Church
> 3621 Campus DriveCollege Park, Maryland 20740?Excelente surtido de ropa para ni?os y ni?as, desde infantes hasta adolecentes. Tambien habra libros, jugetes, cariolas, sillas y mucho mas.?Tambi?n estar? presente la ropa de temporada y accesorios , trajes de ba?o , impermeables y botas, libros, juguetes , art?culos deportivos , beb? / equipos canastilla , mobiliario , equipo y art?culos de maternidad.?Solamente efectivo.??Preguntas? Email Beckyat univparkchildrensclothingsale at gmail,com
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://riverdale-park.org/pipermail/towntalk/attachments/20160317/69c21e62/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 21:16:38 -0400
> From: bob smith <sfmc68 at verizon.net>
> To: twacks at gmail.com
> Cc: TownTalk <towntalk at riverdale-park.org>
> Subject: Re: [RP TownTalk] Change in Government
> Message-ID: <56EA0576.50508 at verizon.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> 
> 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
> >         >
> >         >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 22:33:37 -0400
> From: James Coleman <rpkfarmmkt at gmail.com>
> To: twacks at gmail.com
> Cc: TownTalk <towntalk at riverdale-park.org>
> Subject: Re: [RP TownTalk] Change in Government
> Message-ID: <469F1358-F2E6-49FC-90C2-0513A0858873 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> 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-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 8
> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 22:45:39 -0400
> From: Jim Coleman <rpkfarmmkt at gmail.com>
> To: HOPE_in_Hyattsville at yahoogroups.com,  "pgparents at yahoogroups.com"
> 	<pgparents at yahoogroups.com>, Town Talk <towntalk at riverdale-park.org>
> Subject: [RP TownTalk] RP Farmers Market Weekly Highlights
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAKvAtjBiuqWQ-VxJ5ERoYdmYVVuVO8b02Tyc3jony4XgJQtuDg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> Tomorrow : March 17, 2016  3 - 7PM
> @: 4650 Queensbury Road, Riverdale Park, MD (next to Riverdale MARC station)
> Get your great winter greens, radishes and turnips, white & yellow
> potatoes, winter squash, onions, apples, fresh cider, pastured meats, raw
> milk cheeses, fresh goat cheese, many varieties of mushrooms,  free range
> hen eggs (limited supply), fresh small batch roasted coffees and more while
> we enjoy the beginning of Winter. Don't miss it!  Evening hours are fun at
> the market!   Now with festive lighting! We look forward to seeing you
> Thursdays from 3 to 7PM at the Riverdale Park Town Center, rain or shine.
> 
> WEATHER: High 67, some rain and partly cloudy. We'll be on inside this week.
> 
> Feature News:
> Our favorite urban farm, ECO City Farms <http://ecocityfarms.org/>
> 
> , will be back with us *every week* from here on out. We're glad to have
> their great crops, positive people, and presence back for the long term
> starting this week.
> 
> Maryland Market Money is back for SNAP & WIC-FVC @ $4 per week due to the
> overwhelming response of customers.
> 
> We are offering a new option for local businesspeople that complement our
> food options. One local business per week will be offered a slot at the
> farmers market to offer services and goods that the market doesn't offer
> for $25 per week. We suggest once a month attendance. If you're interested,
> please contact us.
> 
> Coming Attractions:
> 
> Winter Market is here! We will run straight through every Thursday from now
> to March 24 indoors. This is barring blizzard conditions, of course.
> 
> King Mushrooms will be at the Riverdale Farmers Market tomorrow with fresh
> shittake, oyster, lions mane and crimini mushrooms.
> Stop by and check us out we will be there rain or shine!
> 
> Groff's Content Farm is stocked up with delicious forage fed beef, lots of
> free range hen and duck eggs, and whole chickens on special for Winter only!
> 
> We're outdoors 3 to 7 tomorrow from the long holiday season and glad to
> welcome 2016 with our neighbors, friends, and vendors. Tomorrow's lineup
> includes the following vendors:
> 
> Groff's Content Farm <https://www.facebook.com/GroffsContentFarm/>
> , ECO City Farms <https://www.facebook.com/ECOCityFarms/>
> , Cat's Paw Organic Farm <https://www.facebook.com/CatsPawOrganicFarm/>
> , King Mushrooms <https://www.facebook.com/kingsmushroomfarm/>
> , Peachy Family Dairy, Zeke's Coffee of DC
> <https://www.facebook.com/zekescoffeedc/>
> , Dimitri Olive Oil <https://www.facebook.com/DimitriOliveOil/>
> , Stone Hearth Bakery, El Taco Loco, Roy & Rt's Kitchen & Garden
> <https://www.facebook.com/royandrt/>
> , Alaskawild Seafoods <https://www.facebook.com/Alaskawildseafoods/>
> . Our musician for this week is: the great harmonicist Charles Solomon.
> 
> 
> You won't see at market this week: Blades Orchard will be back next week.
> Roy & RT's Kitchen & Garden will be back next hopefully. Jack Creek Plants
> and Red Chimney Farm are finished for the rest of the year due to early
> frost. We hope to see them in the Spring. Mystic Water Soap will be back in
> the Spring but will make deliveries to the market on occasion. Geppetto
> Catering and The Verandah are on hiatus until Spring.
> 
> Entertainers: Charles Solomon this week.
> 
> Kid fun: Back to crayon drawings!!
> 
> Important Notices:
> Food safety notice: Due to a preponderance of evidence and our county's
> health department regulations, dogs are no longer welcome at
> the farmers market. We regret the loss but hope that our dog owning
> customers will forgive us for this change.
> Important note about parking: only parallel parking is allowed on Maryland
> Ave (the road that passes under East-West Highway) -- please do not park in
> any other manner.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://riverdale-park.org/pipermail/towntalk/attachments/20160316/6c572bbf/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 9
> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 04:00:30 +0000
> From: Jonathan Ebbeler <jebbeler at efusionconsulting.com>
> To: "towntalk at riverdale-park.org" <towntalk at riverdale-park.org>
> Subject: [RP TownTalk] Change in Government
> Message-ID:
> 	<CY1PR01MB126310A89AA4C0350F4A17C8D58B0 at CY1PR01MB1263.prod.exchangelabs.com>
> 	
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> 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 su
>  ited 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 implement
>  ation 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 ? 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-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 10
> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 05:53:37 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Bruce Wernek <bruce.wernek at verizon.net>
> To: jebbeler at efusionconsulting.com, towntalk at riverdale-park.org
> Subject: Re: [RP TownTalk] Change in Government
> Message-ID:
> 	<19897943.765634.1458212017809.JavaMail.root at vms170033.mailsrvcs.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> 
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://riverdale-park.org/pipermail/towntalk/attachments/20160317/863fe076/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 11
> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 07:19:03 -0400
> From: Vernon Archer <varcher at gmail.com>
> To: Bruce Wernek <bruce.wernek at verizon.net>
> Cc: "Jonathan W. Ebbeler" <jebbeler at efusionconsulting.com>, TownTalk
> 	<towntalk at riverdale-park.org>
> Subject: Re: [RP TownTalk] Change in Government
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAMgQDE1mp=pSNceATjX2wkRoQV_feZ-GVqfY7xR9cqKs9hdSRA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> 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 ? 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-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 12
> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 06:36:27 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Bruce Wernek <bruce.wernek at verizon.net>
> To: varcher at gmail.com, bruce.wernek at verizon.net
> Cc: jebbeler at efusionconsulting.com, towntalk at riverdale-park.org
> Subject: Re: [RP TownTalk] Change in Government
> Message-ID:
> 	<6679894.865654.1458214587148.JavaMail.root at vms170027.mailsrvcs.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> 
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://riverdale-park.org/pipermail/towntalk/attachments/20160317/3e2c2916/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TownTalk mailing list
> TownTalk at riverdale-park.org
> http://riverdale-park.org/mailman/listinfo/towntalk
> 
> For more information about Riverdale Park, visit http://www.riverdaleparkmd.info
> 
> End of TownTalk Digest, Vol 116, Issue 18
> *****************************************
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://riverdale-park.org/pipermail/towntalk/attachments/20160317/34cc2ff8/attachment.html>