[RP TownTalk] Field of Dreams

Thu May 5 07:32:57 UTC 2016

Alan -
After the second failed attempt by the Mayor to remove me from office in March a constituent who was an avid supporter talked to me offline and said how happy they were that I was still in office so I could still continue my efforts to advance the economic development of the town but expressed concerned that based on the open hostility shown by the Mayor and Council would I adequately be able to represent Ward 1.  My immediate response was yes, but the last two months has made it clear I could not.

In five years you have never ignored me on an issue and were always willing to listen to my opinion and broker a compromise, this legislation was the glaring and very disappointing exception.  Since the Mayor decided not to allow comment, including public comment from those who had suffered through hours of sitting through the 3/4/16 meeting, my comments had to be logically conveyed to you after the March meeting.  I offered that night to have a drink in the near future with you and hash out my concerns which was tersely snubbed.  You had the time to meet with others in the community, but I was not worth the conversation?  I appreciate you have missed my voice but you knew where to find it and on this issue it apparently wasn't worth a one-on-one conversation.  I had a lot of respect for you, but how you went about things process-wise and realizing you did not value my input for even a simple conversation, resigning was a forgone conclusion.

You could have, as a fellow sitting member of the Legislative Committee vetted the legislation with me in committee - you opted not to.  Section 2-1(d) of our Town Code explains the purpose of the Legislative Committee: "Legislative is concerned with legislation, including but not limited to ordinances, resolutions, charter changes or any legislation which may be introduced by the chairman of the committee or any member of the Council."  At no point did either you or the Mayor ever request to discuss my concerns with the legislation.

I have been called many things in life but ambivalent is not one of them.  The entire town knew I had issues with the legislation, yet after five years I was not worth a simple conversation or the debate.  Process matters.  How can the Mayor in good conscience claim that questions and comments were answered and addressed when neither you as the sponsor or the Mayor as its chief advocate and benefactor ever engaged with me as the primary dissenting voice?

Had that happened, I would have pointed out most of the arguments towards how the legislation was drafted were specious.  I still can't understand your rationale behind the legislation since most of the whereas justifications were factually flawed.  Sarah posted that prior to the legislation the Mayor could have fired the Town Administrator without consulting the Council - this is false.  Our current Section 404(b) specifically requires all hires and terminations by the Mayor to be supported by a majority vote of the Council.  Much of the argument was to take the Mayor out of the day-to-day.  This is also a falsehood.  Section 702(a) specifically addresses this point in that the Town Administrator is ALREADY the Chief Operating Officer of the town in administering the general operations of the town.  If our current Mayor is claiming the day-to-day is a burden perhaps he should just respect the Charter and let the Town Administrator function as the COO.

The ONE change that the legislation did alter was to remove the financial responsibility away from the Chair of the Finance Committee and the Mayor for the overall financial management of the town onto a Town Manager.  I found it an absolutely bizarre argument about the time spend of these positions especially when the sponsors have been in office for years.  It is absolutely true that there is an initial learning curve and my first six months I had to learn a lot (especially with Cafritz), but 99% of issues that come up now are trivial and easy to deal with (even complex zoning questions).  I find it exceptionally difficult to believe that a Mayor sitting in office for 5+ terms is having a difficult time or would in the future.  As I said all along - structure is meaningless it matters who sits in the seats.  Real CEOs never micro-manage - they ensure the right people are in positions and held accountable.

I greatly dislike that this issue is being framed as 'we followed the law.'  Yes, I agree, the Mayor and Council did the minimum necessary that a legal challenge would be difficult.  I think the bypassing of the Legislative Committee could have legal merit but ultimately it would kick it back to Council who in my absence would vote it forward.  The legal requirements are not a high standard.  On any major issue in town we have always held a dedicated public hearing to hear from the public on that issue and that issue alone, in this case despite my pleas for one, none were had.  When you have meetings with 2 hour presentations in advance of an issue like this on an agenda you are putting a barrier in front the public that doesn't need to be there.

Open and transparent government means you try to do whatever practicable to ensure voices are heard.  It is VERY easy to follow the law, ignore dissent, and vote a forgone conclusion; it isn't that it is illegal to do, it just isn't politically smart nor is it providing the representation the oath of office requires.  Bob Smith is right a referendum is possible for this overreach by Council, but I would suggest a different referendum - the elections in May.  When people who should be able to do the job blindfolded start complaining about the time burdens, it is probably about time to get different people with different points of view and fresh energy in there.

During the middle of the debate the Mayor issued an Executive Order that continues to make zero sense.  When I asked for current YTD financials none were ever provided.  Why?  When I pressed the issue to its conclusion it was discovered that the taxable assessment argument was bogus not to mention we had 6+ months in reserve with less than two months in the Fiscal Year.  We did however balance our current budget on phantom revenue items.  We have yet to hear the Finance Committee or Mayor opine on any of these things.  I think the Executive Order at an absolute minimum requires a full public accounting for how and why it was arrived at.  If it is true we have more than 6 months in reserve, the Executive Order was an illegal abuse of power.  I believe the Finance Committee owes the public an explanation if the Mayor is unable or unwilling to provide a clear and concise discussion on the rationale behind it

This issue, along with the financial mismanagement of the town, are not going to just go away.  The fantastic thing is that the Mayor has recommended the non-renewal of the Town Administrator's contract and she has declined to stay on after 6/30.  Effective, almost simultaneously, with the enactment of this banner legislation the town will be without its COO.  I do have to ask, what kind of Mickey Mouse operation is the town running?  Did anyone bother to think things through before acting or are we just legislating and reacting?  The town effectively fires the current COO, almost like the financial messes are her fault (wink wink), except they are constitutionally the Mayor's and the Finance Committee's, changes its form of government at the same time, and will either go months without having our top professional position filled or hire the first warm body found.  Really?

JWE
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://riverdale-park.org/pipermail/towntalk/attachments/20160505/24c912fa/attachment.html>