[RP TownTalk] Field of Dreams

[Jonathan Ebbeler]

Alan

With all due respect 'seek first to understand, then to be understood.'  It is disrespectful to tell me you understood all my concerns when you never had a direct conversation.  It was disappointing to hear you talk about meeting with Bob Smith who expressed concerns the same time I did yet never was there any outreach to a sitting colleague with a clearly communicated dissenting opinion.  My offer for a drink the 3/4/16 meeting was not for that night.  I stated 'we need to have some scotch in the near future and sort some of this out' to which you replied something to the effect of 'I don't know, my schedule is pretty full.'  You were the sponsor of the bill, not me - if you really cared as much as you say now why in 2 months did you not bother to call or email me a single time?  I appreciate all the direct engagement now, but seems a bit silly to happen after I resign and after you voted.

I was sick for approximately a week and a half at the end of March and beginning of April.  I was still at the March Worksession (where things are supposed to be discussed) but finally grounded by the Doctor after my second trip to see him.  I was still able to perform my day job and could have taken a call from you or answered emails.  It is patently insulting to now be told that you carefully considered all my requests without talking to me, yet a paragraph later admit you "devoted the time...to people who had not written thousands of words of commentary on the legislation."  I appreciate you at least publically admitting I wasn't worth your time or bother despite clearly having strong opinion on your hallmark legislation.

Having mixed feelings doesn't make me ambivalent - it is communicating I have an open mind and welcome the debate.  It means I can see both sides of an argument.  It is the attitude expected of any effective legislator.  Going into a deliberative process thinking that facts 'thoroughly debunk' something or that there is only one 'right' way to think is too dogmatic for my taste.

Open and transparent government also welcomes people to run for elective office.  Since you sponsored this legislation mid-term I would appreciate answers to the following:

1)      State for the record that this legislation was not crafted to create the conditions you would want personally to run for Mayor.

2)      State for the record your intent to run for Mayor in 2017

I am confused by the statement that there was an anticipation of the increase in the taxable base which would allow us to stop spending the surplus.  In looking at anticipated budgeted revenue the numbers were fairly flat.  There doesn't appear to be any built-in large changes in anticipation for this FY.  The anticipated revenues budgeted for Fiscal Years were as follows:

FY12: $3,426,207
FY13: $3,666,560
FY14: $3,624,548
FY15: $3,432,074
FY16: $3,531,910

I was happy to hear that the Finance Committee and the Mayor shelved the Town Hall project as I had been saying for months we needed to do (the financials didn't make sense).  It would have been nice for either to opine in on my lengthy and detailed disclosure of finance numbers.  Please answer for the public why this year's budget was balanced with over $550k with a line item 'bond proceeds' and the Committee's opinion on the prudence of that now.  I would also like to know what the Finance Committee's anticipated break-even point will be for Cafritz (since clearly it was not this year nor next or the year after).

For the record, you did not understand my concerns, you did not address my concerns and I was exceptionally disappointed in your conduct personally and professionally.  How do we expect the public to feel welcome to express their opinions in a public forum if this is how they see members of a deliberative body treated?

JWE

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://riverdale-park.org/pipermail/towntalk/attachments/20160505/f321879f/attachment.html>