[RP TownTalk] 5/16 Closed Meeting to discuss Personnel Matters involving the Town Administrator

[Jonathan Ebbeler]

All -

The Mayor's 4/28/2016 post ( http://riverdale-park.org/pipermail/towntalk/2016-April/019603.html )talked expansively about the budget troubles previously discussed on other posts.  It was a bit confusing that in the same missive, the Mayor noted that a justification for not delaying the vote (and transferring the financial responsibility of the town from himself to a newly hired Town Manager) was that:


"- *A new fact that also suggests that we need to reach a conclusion is the current town administrator's cont[r]act [sic] expires June 30 and I have told her that I will not support renewing it. I held open negotiating a temporary contract contingent on the town manager legislation passing, and her applying for that position. She informed me that she will not seek an extension and that when her contract expires she will be leaving town service. Therefore we will be in the search for a new senior staff member whether it is an "administrator" or a "manager" is the only question, and one that needs to be settled promptly. *"

Four hours earlier, the Mayor had sent a note out to Council stating much the same in an email but explicitly warning us that "this is ultimately a personnel issue and the "reasons" are not a matter for public discussion."    My first reaction was to question the email as a potential violation of the Maryland Open Meetings Act.  The town can certainly transact Personnel matters while adhering to due process requirements.  The law requires the Mayor and Council to enter into a closed session which is only now being followed after a potentially damaging post by the Mayor exposed the town to additional expensive litigation by not following due process.

It seems odd that the Mayor would discuss 'newly' discovered budget problems and then in the same post disclose that there will be a recommendation not to renew an employee's contract.  Under Maryland law (Code Title 5, Subtitle 4, Section 5-423) such employee/employment disclosures are limited to a "prospective employer", "former or current employee", or a "federal, state, or industry regulatory agency."  Disclosures outside of those three exclusions removes immunity from the employer in regards to violating an employee's privacy rights.  I am fairly certain that Town Talk does not fall under any of the three exclusions.

I am concerned that the post seemed to disclose town financial missteps, which, as our Charter states, "the Mayor shall have complete supervision over the financial administration" (a non-delegatable authority) , with what should be a disconnected subject of personnel matters.  It is not lost on me that the timing of the legislation perfectly coincided with the notification on a town blog by the Mayor that his recommendation would be to not renew our Town Administrator's contract, effectively terminating her.

Anyone who has worked a day within HR understands that to inoculate an organization from lawsuits regarding false light and defamation torts from employees, that the only thing ever communicated to outside parties is that an employee started employment on a certain date and terminated on a certain date; performance and/or eligibility for rehire are not discussed regardless of if the law allows for it.  I sincerely hope that the Council is not receiving legal advice regarding personnel matters involving the Town Administrator due to potential litigation that the Mayor exposed the town to by violating her privacy rights through his post.

The hurried approach by the Mayor and Council to vote in legislation that leaves the town without its Chief Operating Officer for months while they contemplate a search (or hire a sub-standard candidate just to fill a vacancy they created) could have been predicted and mitigated against.  Once the legislation is codified by the waiting period, the town's Chief Financial Officer responsibilities transfer from the Mayor (whose budgetary direction and structural deficits put the town in the current position) to a seat that will be vacant as of 6/30.

I do not believe that the legislation shifting the duty of financial management from the Mayor to a Town Manager and the Executive Order declaring a Financial Emergency (under now known false pretenses) were disconnected.  The Town Administrator was already, by law, the Chief Operating Officer responsible for the day-to-day administration and operation of the town which was a substantial justification for the need of the legislation (we 'really' needed something we already had).  The core change the legislation provided for was who was responsible for the financial matters of the town, currently the Mayor soon to be a Town Manager.  The timing of all this, along with the recommended non-renewal of the current Town Administrator's contract (announced 5 days before the vote on the Council Manager) seems to implicitly suggest that the Mayor is not to blame for anything that happened, when our Charter is very clear on this point that he, and he alone, shoulders that responsibility.

JWE
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://riverdale-park.org/pipermail/towntalk/attachments/20160516/13d9d03a/attachment.html>