[RP TownTalk] Field of Dreams

Fri May 6 11:13:41 UTC 2016

Interesting.

All I heard of your offer was “we need to have some scotch in the near
future.” Even if I had heard the rest “…to sort some of this out” I’m not
sure, given everything that happened at that meeting, that I would have
interpreted that statement as a request to discuss my legislation.

I sent private e-mails to all members of the council about my legislation
on February 28 (with a clear statement of my availability to discuss it),
April 3 (with an expectation of discussing the changes at the next day’s
meeting) and April 21 (which included the statement that I was leaving the
country soon for work, but would be available by e-mail).  You didn’t reply
to those messages.  You did send me a note on April 21, perhaps in response
to my message, asking me to withdraw the legislation.  The April 21 note
was the first personal message to me from you on the legislation.

So, here we are.

You are correct that continuing the discussion now is silly.

I’ll focus my attention instead on the upcoming budget.  We’ll have a
full-day meeting on May 21 (10 am until we’re done, 5008 Queensbury Avenue)
to discuss it.  The public is of course welcome.

Alan

P.S.  Since you asked, I have no idea what my plans are for next spring’s
election.  I may not run for anything.  And no, I did not introduce this
legislation to make it possible for me to run for Mayor.

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Jonathan Ebbeler <
jebbeler at efusionconsulting.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160506/d28f9ffa/attachment.html>