<div dir="ltr">Dear Bob,<div><br></div><div>I'm sorry that I have not provided the detail you wish thus far.</div><div><br></div><div>I feel like TownTalk might not be the best place for us to discuss this - I'm frustrated that I am not answering your questions (and spending a lot of time and energy on it), and I can tell that you're frustrated at not getting the answers you want (and I imagine you're spending a lot of time and energy on it as well). I'll contact you off-list to arrange a meeting, and will report back here with a summary of what we discussed, if that's acceptable to you.</div><div><br></div><div>Best regards,</div><div><br></div><div>Alan</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 10:32 AM, bob smith <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sfmc68@verizon.net" target="_blank">sfmc68@verizon.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Councilman Thompson,<br>
Thank you for your reply. This was not what I expected from you.<br>
<br>
On 4 March, I asked two simple questions, with the hope of gaining some<br>
understanding of this potential change in Town governance. You advised<br>
you would answer MY questions in that exchange in more detail. You have<br>
not done that in this response.<br>
<br>
In this reply You are addressing Councilman Ebbler's comments and not my<br>
questions of 4 March.<br>
<br>
Thank you for the additional information but I do read in this response<br>
that you accept this proposal as a done deal with your paragraph on the<br>
Mayor's new status. This concerns me.<br>
<br>
For a good while now, you have cited the fact of your diligent work on<br>
this proposed legislation. There have been rumors about it. The draft<br>
was presented before the town meeting and introduced.<br>
<br>
Detail has been and still is missing.<br>
<br>
I am focused on getting the information and opinions from everyone.<br>
<br>
Please, Review my questions and comments and consider those. I would<br>
like answers to the questions in order to understand this subject and as<br>
much of the implications to the town as possible.<br>
<br>
Respectfully,<br>
Bob Smith<br>
Ward 3<br>
<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 3/8/16 11:47 PM, Alan K. Thompson wrote:<br>
> Dear Bob,<br>
><br>
> I wanted to touch on a few of the points raised by Jonathan about this<br>
> legislation, and see if that could help you come to a decision about<br>
> your support for it.<br>
><br>
> Before I do that, though, I need to answer your big question - why is<br>
> this legislation needed? I'll answer you with another question (or<br>
> several): why do we have a Director of Public Works? Why can't the<br>
> mayor supervise the department? Why do we have a Police Chief? Can't<br>
> the mayor supervise them too?<br>
><br>
> The reason we have those department heads, as Mayor Archer stated in his<br>
> Town Crier article this month, is that they have more time (because<br>
> they are not trying to do those jobs at the same time as their "day"<br>
> job) and more training, because they are professionals. As the demands<br>
> from ever more complicated regulations (government and otherwise),<br>
> personnel rules, etc., mount it becomes harder and harder for an<br>
> ordinary town resident who has been elected to serve as mayor to meet<br>
> those demands at the same time as holding down a job and meeting family<br>
> obligations.<br>
><br>
> It is definitely possible for the mayor to simply delegate many<br>
> responsibilities to the Town Administrator (and other department heads),<br>
> as I honestly think has been done at some level for the entire time I<br>
> have been watching or participating in town government (more than 20<br>
> years). I think it's a better idea to explicitly have those roles and<br>
> responsibilities spelled out in our Charter so that there is a<br>
> consistent policy of who is responsible for what as administrations and<br>
> councils come and go. The proposed Charter amendments include these<br>
> changes.<br>
><br>
> Now to move to some of Jonathan's points.....<br>
><br>
> His discussion of at-large election of council members, whether to have<br>
> a mayor or not, and council/mayor salaries are all extremely important<br>
> and difficult questions. When I was reading the charters of other<br>
> municipalities, I noted that Greenbelt (which has the most pure version<br>
> of a council-manager form of government of any I read) has at-large<br>
> elections of council members, does not have direct election of a mayor,<br>
> and (though I previously stated that I thought the council member who<br>
> received the most votes served as mayor) the mayor is chosen by their<br>
> council. Their city manager serves an indefinite term, and may only be<br>
> removed for cause (though I think the cause doesn't have to be much). I<br>
> considered going more in that direction but decided that at least for<br>
> what I was submitting I would stay closer to our current form of<br>
> government.<br>
><br>
> I'm a little confused by his concern about the lack of an<br>
> "employer-employee relationship" under the Council-Manager form of<br>
> government; I'm hoping he will clarify that in his future, longer<br>
> discussion.<br>
><br>
> I'll focus first on a significant part of that relationship - getting<br>
> fired. Under our current charter, only the mayor may initiate removal of<br>
> the Town Administrator, but removal requires council approval. Under<br>
> the new charter, the council as a whole must vote to remove the Town<br>
</div></div>> Manager, but that action can be initiated by /any/ council member.<br>
<span class="">> Either way, a majority of the council must vote to remove, and either<br>
> way, if someone initiates removal, a smart town administrator/manager<br>
> will begin looking for a new job.<br>
><br>
> Similarly, the council currently establishes policy (through the budget<br>
> and through resolutions and ordinances), and will continue to do so.<br>
> The mayor currently interprets and prioritizes council policies. Under<br>
> the proposed changes to a system with a Town Manager, the council may<br>
> have to be more detailed in statements of policy, but the town manager<br>
> can certainly informally or formally request clarification from the council.<br>
><br>
> Finally, Jonathan stated that "you can call your Councilmember and/or<br>
> the Mayor" to have an issue resolved. Under our current system, the Town<br>
> Administrator responds to such requests from Town Council members (who<br>
> are not her direct supervisor). This will still be possible under the<br>
> new Council Manager form of government; the power of council members are<br>
> enhanced over what exists now.<br>
><br>
> Regarding the mayor's new status as a full member of the council, the<br>
> major difference is that he or she can vote on any question. The<br>
> charter (§ 205) currently allows the mayor to fully participate in<br>
> discussions, which is common under the "small board" version of Robert's<br>
> Rules (and our town council qualifies as small in that way). Robert's<br>
</span>> Rules also generally /assume/ that the chair of a meeting is a full<br>
> member of the council, but that as chair they choose to /refrain/ from<br>
> voting unless their vote will make a difference, and /refrain/ from<br>
<span class="">> participating in discussions unless they feel that it is vitally<br>
> important (and, under the "large assembly" rules they are required to<br>
> hand off chairing the meeting to another member until the question on<br>
> which they comment is decided). There are a lot of layers to Robert's<br>
> Rules, and a knowledgeable council will be able, easily, to check the<br>
> power of a mayor with a strong personality, assuming that a majority of<br>
> the council disagrees with the mayor.<br>
><br>
> Finally, I don't think there will be a significant budget impact - under<br>
> the legislation there will be a Town Manager, but no Town Administrator.<br>
> I don't think the salary difference between the two should be more than 10%.<br>
><br>
> Bob, please let me know if I have missed answering your questions<br>
> (re-sending, just to me, any messages that have unanswered questions is<br>
> fine). I've tried to address all of them that I've seen but I may have<br>
> missed something and want to be sure you get the answers you want.<br>
><br>
> Best regards,<br>
><br>
> Alan<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 7:52 PM, bob smith <<a href="mailto:sfmc68@verizon.net">sfmc68@verizon.net</a><br>
</span><div><div class="h5">> <mailto:<a href="mailto:sfmc68@verizon.net">sfmc68@verizon.net</a>>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Councilman,<br>
> Thank you. You have hit on a number of my concerns very concisely.<br>
> You understand my questions about the larger picture. Excellent.<br>
><br>
> I am hoping the rest of my questions in the last exchanges will be<br>
> answered and the background thinking explained in the manner that you<br>
> have taken the time to accomplish.<br>
><br>
> I don't know the thinking of the entire council on the need for a CEO<br>
> and the budget impact immediately and over time. I am hoping they will<br>
> share that information with the town in detail.<br>
><br>
> Again, thank you for responding with what you are aware of and clearly<br>
> stating that you have a mixed opinion - I think with more detail maybe I<br>
> can get to one side or the other of the issue.<br>
><br>
> Respectfully<br>
> bob smith<br>
> ward 3<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On 3/8/16 5:52 PM, Jonathan Ebbeler wrote:<br>
> > Bob –<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > I have a much longer response planned but will likely break it out in<br>
> > more readable sections.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > I have a mixed opinion about the change in government. In general<br>
> > terms, this is the preferred model that most town administrators<br>
> want –<br>
> > i.e. to move to a Council-Manager form of government. The<br>
> > ‘professional’ gets to make staffing calls, budget preparation<br>
> etc. Ask<br>
> > anyone who has been to our budget hearings – very little is actually<br>
> > changed between the draft budget and the final budget. The fights are<br>
> > usually around staff additions since they have tremendous impacts<br>
> to our<br>
> > current and more importantly future budgets (we have a very rich<br>
> pension<br>
> > benefit but very unfunded pension liability).<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > In theory a town manager would be above the fray to administer the<br>
> > direction of the town and the Council’s primary role would be to<br>
> > administer policy. A major critique of this form of government is<br>
> that<br>
> > the manager is expected to understand intrinsically the needs,<br>
> wants of<br>
> > a community they most likely will not live in. Managers have no<br>
> direct<br>
> > accountability to the voters and more importantly it is often<br>
> difficult<br>
> > to obtain policy leadership with a Council-manager form of government.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > What is lost significantly is the lack of any real employee-employer<br>
> > relationship which is my mind is a significant check and balance of<br>
> > power. Currently the town administrator reports to the mayor and has<br>
> > direct accountability from an operational level to that position. If<br>
> > you or anyone in town has an issue with say trash collection you can<br>
> > call your Councilmember and/or the Mayor and there is a direct<br>
> > accountability and a constituent service provided.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > When contemplating this form of government you have to ask yourself if<br>
> > it would also make sense to go to an at-large Council rather than<br>
> wards<br>
> > if we are going to remove the system of checks and balances. More to<br>
> > the point perhaps a mayor shouldn’t be elected as a seat but<br>
> determined<br>
> > by the most number of votes. If we are going to discuss a decrease in<br>
> > responsibility than of course it is only fair to taxpayers to decrease<br>
> > Council/Mayor salaries commensurately as well.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > It also moves a mayor into a position where they get to vote and<br>
> debate<br>
> > vs. what is required by Roberts Rules of Order currently (an impartial<br>
> > chair). So imagine a situation (hypothetically of course) where there<br>
> > was significant policy disagreement between the Mayor and another<br>
> > Councilmember. Currently the Mayor is required by our rules to<br>
> stay out<br>
> > of the discussion and only votes in a tie. Going forward it isn’t<br>
> hard<br>
> > to imagine some strong personalities running for seats on Council that<br>
> > may have a difference of opinion that will unlikely lead to a<br>
> harmonious<br>
> > experience for the rest of the Council. It is difficult enough to<br>
> find<br>
> > a policy direction with 6 people. Sometimes more isn’t<br>
> necessarily better<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > A fundamental question I have is what is so broken that the<br>
> Council now<br>
> > feels this is the only path forward? I have seen justifications of<br>
> that<br>
> > we are growing as a town etc. Understood and agree but that doesn’t<br>
> > define the need in any quantitative form or fashion. A system of<br>
> > governance does not in of itself solve problems nor does trying to<br>
> hire<br>
> > your way out of. I would like to understand what problem it is<br>
> exactly<br>
> > we are trying to solve.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Jonathan<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Jonathan W. Ebbeler<br>
> ><br>
> > Councilman, Ward 1<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > TownTalk mailing list<br>
> > To post to the list, send mail to <a href="mailto:TownTalk@riverdale-park.org">TownTalk@riverdale-park.org</a><br>
</div></div>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:TownTalk@riverdale-park.org">TownTalk@riverdale-park.org</a>><br>
> > <a href="mailto:TownTalk-request@riverdale-park.org">TownTalk-request@riverdale-park.org</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:TownTalk-request@riverdale-park.org">TownTalk-request@riverdale-park.org</a>> is for automated<br>
<span class="">> subscription processing only<br>
> > <a href="http://riverdale-park.org/mailman/listinfo/towntalk" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://riverdale-park.org/mailman/listinfo/towntalk</a><br>
> ><br>
> > For more information about Riverdale Park, visit<br>
> <a href="http://www.riverdaleparkmd.info" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.riverdaleparkmd.info</a><br>
> ><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> TownTalk mailing list<br>
> To post to the list, send mail to <a href="mailto:TownTalk@riverdale-park.org">TownTalk@riverdale-park.org</a><br>
</span>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:TownTalk@riverdale-park.org">TownTalk@riverdale-park.org</a>><br>
> <a href="mailto:TownTalk-request@riverdale-park.org">TownTalk-request@riverdale-park.org</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:TownTalk-request@riverdale-park.org">TownTalk-request@riverdale-park.org</a>> is for automated<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">> subscription processing only<br>
> <a href="http://riverdale-park.org/mailman/listinfo/towntalk" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://riverdale-park.org/mailman/listinfo/towntalk</a><br>
><br>
> For more information about Riverdale Park, visit<br>
> <a href="http://www.riverdaleparkmd.info" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.riverdaleparkmd.info</a><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>