[RP TownTalk] Field of Dreams

[Alan K. Thompson]

Jonathan,

I carefully considered each and every one of your concerns with the
legislation, as expressed in your letters in this forum.  I publicly
responded to many of them in my Town Crier articles.  While it was a slow
conversation, it did happen, some of it right here on TownTalk.

After the March legislative, I was too exhausted to go out for a drink with
you (my work does not have the same scheduling flexibility that yours does,
so a post-meeting conversation until 1 am means my day job is greatly
impacted).  I responded to your request with a "maybe later."  Given the
contentious events of that council meeting, I didn't think that the item at
the top of your agenda for discussion at the S&J was my just-introduced
legislation.

As you certainly remember, you were sick during much of March; I was very
short on time during that month because of other things going on in my life
and devoted the time I had to people who had not written thousands of words
of commentary on the legislation.

Just to set the record straight, your opening letter on the legislation
stated "I have a mixed opinion about the change in government." In other
postings you stated that you think that the structure of government is not
important to the success of the government - it's all about who is in
government. I agree and disagree with that statement. Who is there is quite
important, but so is the structure. And this change in structure opens up
the office of mayor to more people.

There are a lot of municipalities in Maryland that use this form of
government, and have financial accountability in the Town/City Manager. It
works for them, it should work for us.

I won't dig into the Town's financial situation too deeply in this letter,
but the current and future revenue shortfall caused by a very valuable
building moving off the tax rolls is, again as you stated in a previous
letter, something that the town can deal with. In past years, we had a
large surplus (mainly because of the first few years of the speed cameras)
and used it during the real estate crisis to keep resident's taxes flat. We
were anticipating that for the assessment completed this year (these
assessments happen every three years) that we would see a significant bump
up in the taxable base, and could stop spending the surplus. The taxable
base didn't increase, and the mayor has proposed a budget that will
continue spending surplus, plus some significant belt-tightening. The
finance committee will review that budget in a few weeks, and we may not
agree with it. We'll have to see. Everyone in the public is welcome to
attend that meeting.

I wish you the best in your future endeavors,

Alan



On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 3:32 AM, Jonathan Ebbeler <
jebbeler at efusionconsulting.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160505/3987186a/attachment.html>