<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Mr. Mayor –<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We are getting severely off topic and I would like it if we could refocus the conversation back to the topic at hand in subsequent emails. The comments made do require some clarification.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I respectfully disagree with your assertion that the Charter supersedes Roberts Rules in regards to this point. This is not due to a disagreement or precedence – Section 2 in Roberts Rules clearly states that rules in conflict with the
Charter do not take precedence. In this case, there is no conflict because our Charter is silent on the point, ergo we turn to Roberts Rules for clarification.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We are all in agreement that Section 205 does allow for a mechanism for the Mayor, as a member of the Council, to participate in a conversation. Roberts Rules in Section 43 (Rules Governing Debate) also stipulates that if a chair (the
Mayor) is a member of the body (as the Mayor is per Section 205 in the Charter) that the chair may participate, but notes there are limitations to that participation; those limitations are found under the heading “Rule Against the Chair’s Participation in
Debate.” Section 2 in Roberts Rules specifically addresses this point due to the draconian nature of Charters (i.e. rules in a Charter may not be suspended unless specified by the Charter itself): “…a corporate charter generally should contain only what
is necessary to obtain it, and to establish the desired status of the organization under law – leaving as much as possible to the bylaws or to lower-ranking rules…”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Section 208 states “The Council shall determine its own rules and order of business.” The first order of business after a new Council has been sworn in has been to vote on the rules from which the Council will govern itself under. Historically,
this has been Roberts Rules.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Generally speaking, I am offering an opinion based upon my personal experience – take it for what it is worth. I realize and respect other’s opinions that would disagree with mine and welcome the debate. It has been my experience on Council
that if there are two people with a strong policy direction difference, the town suffers. I think it has been the historical character of prior Councils as well that when a Mayor and a Councilman vie for the role of the primary policy advocate that disharmony
ensued. A major criticism of the Council-Manager system is precisely this – when you move an ‘impartial’ chair into a voting position the body sets itself up for failure rather than success unless we are to presume that 6 Councilmembers will just fall in
line with a Mayor’s wishes.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I greatly appreciated the town sending flowers to the family funeral in May; it is unfortunate that death sometimes gets in the way of our elected positions. Unless there is something that is not in the public record or information is
being withheld from me, I am up to speed with town happenings but do appreciate the offer. If there are other items of business that are not publically available I am always open to that conversation!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I am confused by the comments surrounding the business license ordinance. As you remember, when I attempted to draft a significantly less burdensome version I was asked to stand down and was told that our attorney would handle this since
this involved a significant charter departure. I was happy to find out though that we were able to split the legal costs with Capitol Heights since they were drafting the identical legislation and Fred represents both Municipalities. As you know, the regulation
I sponsored was created to give the town the legal ability to remove long illegal business from operating without licenses. Turning a continued blind eye exposed the town to legal liability in case anyone ever died at these businesses we knew to be operating
illegally; this btw was one of the primary reasons given by Douglas Development for their lack of investment into our community. In meeting with their team they explicitly stated that if we got rid of the storefront churches they would invest and make efforts
for leasing tenants at the property. With the newest tenant signing a letter of intent with Douglas Development, we are on track for activating most of the first floor. Clearly something that could have been done years ago but better late than never.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Percentage increases are not instructive unless there are accurate baselines. If the town spent 10 hours a month and now spends 50 that is a 500% increase. Again, if we had engaged business process experts they could look at our town
to figure out what we are doing well, what needs improvement, and how we can best structure government.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There are technology solutions to most of the issues the staff faces. The business license ordinance is a great example and I appreciate you bringing it up. The town could certainly automate most of what it is currently doing manually.
Why do we not have the ability on our website to upload the required documentation into a reporting database? If you have operational items that staff claims to be a 500% increase in time, they are great examples to look at solving from a business process
point of view. Throwing staff at problems and hiring people without evaluating the technology layer that can assist you is what government entities did in pre 2000. Both private and public entities have engaged technology over the last 15 years to address
the manual processes that continue to plague our town operationally. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I am really, really confused about your last paragraph. What personal business do I own that would even be subject to our town’s regulations? I am a partner in three businesses, all duly listed in my annual financial disclosure forms:
Skyfusion II, LLC, Skybound Aviation, LLC, Efusion Consulting, LLC. All three have their physical office and are domiciled in Atlanta, GA where my business partner lives. We do not have any employees in MD, much less in the town so I am confused as to why
there would be any regulatory authority. I hope this is not the type of overreach that business in town have received or part of the reason there has been a ‘500%’ increase in workload.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If we can get back to the topic of the Change in Government it would be greatly appreciated!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Jonathan<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Jonathan W. Ebbeler<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chair, Economic Development Committee<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Councilman, Ward 1 <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>