Did that title get your attention? The sad reality in this town is the fact that if Nancy and I were to be divorced, we could both serve on the town charter reform commission. Currently, we both can't serve since we are family. I love the way our town government is out in front promoting family values!
Originally, the question of family members serving together was brought up by our recently fired town manager. Although he proclaimed piously that he simply wanted to include more citizens on boards and commissions, many of us thought he was simply trying to exclude certain persons annoying to him and his agenda. Why the commissioners who fired this town finance wizard persist in this policy is beyond me. Could you imagine the uproar if the commissioners said that there can't be too many persons of color on a commission? Their position on the family is just as harmful to the social fabric.
Ridgely has come a long way in the 14 years that I have been serving on the planning and zoning commission. I'll never forget the debate on passing our first preservation guidelines which subsequently saved the endangered old homes on Central Ave. Yet, another town manager stood up and denounced us saying "ah hah, it is about preservation". Well, yes it was. I suppose he was trying to appeal to those who think preservation is a dirty word or would get in the way of developer profits.
A politician can appeal to our better or lesser angels. In Ridgely, the fallen angels local demagogues appeal to include the haters of anything old--everything from old homes to old trees. The difference between Ridgely and a Podunk is its traditions! It's sad the way our town is divided. The progressive coalition which protects the town's heritage, and small town quality of life, has barely won the last few elections and is always close to defeat by mediocrity.
Along with my wife, I have spent an enormous amount of time on this town over the years. There have been successes but only with constant vigilance. This has a price. I wonder how my daughter's life would be different if so many of my waking hours hadn't been spent worrying about the town? You don't want my services on the charter commission --well, throw me in the brier patch! I hereby resign all my other town commission positions too.
Showing posts with label Charter Change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Charter Change. Show all posts
Friday, October 9, 2009
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Of Charter Change, Couples Serving The Town, Awful Voting Choices; Impeachment
(click on to enlarge)
We received the above letter along with our outrageous water bill today.
Some people in town have forfeited their right to an opinion. One of them is Commissioner Epperly-Glover. WHAT RIGHT DOES ONE OF THE TWO COMMISSION SUPPORTERS OF THE $1.5 MILLION LOAN FOR DEVELOPMENT DISASTER HAVE TO TELL ANYONE HERE WHAT THEY CAN OR CAN'T DO?? THIS IS THE LOAN THAT PUSHED OUR TOWN OVER THE CLIFF. NANCY AND I WERE THE BIGGEST OPPONENTS OF THIS $1.5 MILLION IDIOCY!
Maybe the first charter change should allow for impeachment. There are a lot of people in this town who think you should be IMPEACHED for you actions regarding the $1.5 million. But that REQUIRES charter change. And, of course, you don't want both of us to serve on the charter change commission despite our many years of service to this town both together and separately as elected or appointed members of the town commission, planning and zoning commission, tree commission, rails to trails committee, parks and recreation commission, and historic commission.
By the way, when are you going to post your new family values proclamation on the town hall door -- no couples need apply? (For more info on the disastrous loan see my June 12th post.)
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
The Election In Ridgely And Bull Buster Part I
Today's "Times-Record" announced that the Ridgely town election filing deadline for candidates and voting times are "to be announced". Hmmm...our Charter is very clear on the filing deadline. It's 10 days before the election. This year the election will be on April 27th. In recent elections the polls have been kept open longer than the Charter prescribes. I'm not sure how this came about but it's a good idea. The Charter, however, does say that the polls are open between 9 and 5.
I have to wonder about all this "to be announced" confusion so near to an election. As many of you know, a few weeks ago the town manager presented some proposals to change the Charter election rules. The proposals raised suspicions among many and nothing more was done. It would now be impossible to make any change before the election.
This year I will not let the whispering campaign that emerges every Springtime here in Ridgely go unanswered. I've heard some whoppers over the years as election time approaches. My first BULL BUSTER concerns the strange story that Ridgely's financial woes (which preceded the global economic crisis) are the result of some "snitch" calling the Maryland Department of Environment (MDE). This "call" supposedly stopped our Ridgely Park development. First, even if there was a "call", MDE can't withhold permits without good cause. They had plenty of cause with or without a "snitch" since the town already had to use stream discharge at times when our waste water treatment plant (WWTP) couldn't handle the load. We simply could not handle a new development and the town has now embarked on a $1.5 million WWTP upgrade to accommodate future development.
MDE saved the citizens of Ridgely from a massive sewage spill. MDE also saved us from the massive fines that accompany WWTP failure. If there is a "SNITCH", he or she is a HERO who saved the town citizens from management miscalculations. But I think the whole story is BULL. MDE was just doing their job. They deserve a thank you.
BULL BUSTERS will always ask these questions. Who would start such a rumor? And, who might benefit from such a story? In this case, all signs point to a town manager and his allies trying to explain away the town's abysmal financial situation.
I have to wonder about all this "to be announced" confusion so near to an election. As many of you know, a few weeks ago the town manager presented some proposals to change the Charter election rules. The proposals raised suspicions among many and nothing more was done. It would now be impossible to make any change before the election.
This year I will not let the whispering campaign that emerges every Springtime here in Ridgely go unanswered. I've heard some whoppers over the years as election time approaches. My first BULL BUSTER concerns the strange story that Ridgely's financial woes (which preceded the global economic crisis) are the result of some "snitch" calling the Maryland Department of Environment (MDE). This "call" supposedly stopped our Ridgely Park development. First, even if there was a "call", MDE can't withhold permits without good cause. They had plenty of cause with or without a "snitch" since the town already had to use stream discharge at times when our waste water treatment plant (WWTP) couldn't handle the load. We simply could not handle a new development and the town has now embarked on a $1.5 million WWTP upgrade to accommodate future development.
MDE saved the citizens of Ridgely from a massive sewage spill. MDE also saved us from the massive fines that accompany WWTP failure. If there is a "SNITCH", he or she is a HERO who saved the town citizens from management miscalculations. But I think the whole story is BULL. MDE was just doing their job. They deserve a thank you.
BULL BUSTERS will always ask these questions. Who would start such a rumor? And, who might benefit from such a story? In this case, all signs point to a town manager and his allies trying to explain away the town's abysmal financial situation.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Preserving The Republic One Town At A Time Updated
"You can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all the people all of the time." Abraham Lincoln
Most of us who are involved in small town government are volunteers or are paid only a token amount for our services. We are either elected or appointed to our boards, councils or commissions. We have families and jobs and are seldom political scientists or professional public servants. Not being professionals puts us at a decided disadvantage when dealing with the ever growing power of town managers over our communities. It is important to remember that it is the elected town government which employs the town manager. Increasingly, however, town managers seem to ignore this fact and act as if this arrangement was the other way around. The growth of the role of the non-resident and unelected town manager has led to many conflicts as citizens fight to keep control of their town's destiny.
Most town managers are itinerant moving from town to town over the course of their careers. This profession has one of the highest turnover rates of any occupation. There are many reasons for this. Being a professional, town managers often quickly assume an attitude of thinking that they know what's best for their employer's town. Such an attitude inevitably leads them to indulge in all kinds of Machiavellian maneuvers to manipulate various members of the community to achieve their goals. After a few years of this, enough enemies will have been made so that the manager becomes an election issue and is then sent packing.
A second reason for the high turnover is the fact that many small towns are governed by charters that never envisioned the need for town managers. Such charters don't even mention the position and are full of ambiguities that allow for all kinds of mischief. No party clearly knows what is expected of the other. Often, these charters provide for no elected mayor or long term commission president to counter the machinations of a manager. Ridgely, for example, rotates its commission president yearly, making management of the town manager difficult at best. Again, over time, ill will builds up and the manager faces the risks of growing citizen hostility.
The third reason for the instability of the position is the fact that our own American political culture is changing. Many citizens have lost their political self respect and ability to act as sovereign decision makers. Our society is run more and more on a bureaucratized or corporate model with less opportunities for the development of these traditional citizenship characteristics. People are elected to office unprepared to govern. They act as if they are serving on a charity board instead of a real flesh and blood political entity. Once again, after a few years, these folks wake up, assert themselves and it's off to the hinterlands for the town manager. This constant turnover doesn't benefit any one. The towns suffer from inconsistent management and town managers suffer from unemployment.
Let me retrofit an old saying here. "town managers or their equivalent consultants, you can't live with them and you can't live without them". For our citizen volunteers charged with governing our towns, their job is no small matter. We need the expertise of either a town manager or assorted consultants. Without them, we will find ourselves rudely awoken one morning by our fellow citizens, ready to lynch us because the waste water treatment plant is overflowing and their toilets won't flush. There is no question that we need these policy wonks. However, we are the ones who know what is best for our towns and set the direction of the course where we want to take our towns. We must make it absolutely clear that we are in charge. Failure to do so leads to unbalanced budgets, higher taxes and water bills and excessive ugly development. These are problems concerning the town's quality of life which our elected resident legislators must be attuned to. They are the kind of problems that get little attention from a non-resident and unelected town manager. This creates the sad opportunity for a town government to morph into the strange proposition of being (to borrow and retrofit another old saying) " a government by and for the employees". At this point, the town manager can even run candidates for office who are little more than water carriers for the town manager. Such a proposition gets expensive and the need for tax revenues will be ever growing. It's here that schemes including eminent domain abuse to raise more tax revenues raise their ugly head. In this situation, New London, Connecticut, the pioneer of eminent domain abuse is only right up the road. With its $238,000.00 deficit (which preceded the global financial meltdown), is Ridgely heading in this direction?
First, the town manager should be a stakeholder in the community. They should be required to live in the town they will serve as a citizen and taxpayer. This doesn't mean renting an apartment to use a few nights a week. It means residency plain and simple which must be written into a contract and clearly understood before being hired. Then, residency must be enforced. The negligence of elected officials to carry through on this first step is setting the town manager up for failure. A potentially successful town manager could be wasted if allowed to ignore this important step. A strong correlation seems to exist between town manager residency and an absence of autocratic actions. Ridgely has failed to pass this test and the consequences are a huge deficit.
Elected officials must make it clear to the manager that they haven't hired a municipal union leader (sorry grandpa). The town manager is management and works for the elected officials serving the taxpaying town residents. This isn't to advocate not paying employees what they are worth. You won't, for example, be able to keep a police force in a small town with the state and county constantly trying to recruit your recruits with promises of more money. It is, however, about the loyalty of the town manager to the elected officials who hired him. Too often town managers view the employees as their first constituency. If the manager has somehow avoided step one and not really moved to town, what does it matter if requests for salaries and benefits for staff will far exceed the town taxpayer's median income? Also, it's not money out of his pocket if deficits grow as they have in Ridgely.
Development and growth for the sake of raising enough tax dollars to maintain an ever increasing payroll destroys towns. The town manager's bottom line is often in conflict with the town resident's interest in maintaining their quality of life. When a choice must be made between revenues or quality of life issues, the manager frequently favors the first. This is particularly true if he isn't a town resident. Great plans emphasizing "smart growth" and "traditional neighborhood development" will all fall by the wayside in an economic crunch. It is at this juncture that the mettle of elected officials and town planning commissions will really be tested. Ridgely has arrived at this point and our Planning and Zoning meetings are now battle zones.
Certain citizens drive autocratic town managers nuts. They are usually the activist types who overwhelmingly make up a town's volunteer commissions. These are the natural enemy for autocratic town managers because they also think they know something about how their town should be run. They also can still think and act like old fashioned American citizens. Usually they aren't of one political persuasion. One of my favorite towns has an interesting coalition including Greens and Paleo-Conservatives. As long as national issues are avoided, they work well together trying to preserve their town from what Russell Kirk termed "the enemies of the permanent things".
If your town manager is having activist troubles, expect him to exploit any possible resentment of the activist group and attempt to remake the assorted commissions in the town managers image. People with no experience will suddenly be held up as planning experts to replace long term planning commission members.
Most of us don't want any of the above to happen. To start with, elected officials ought to start acting like they understand the power they have and exercise it on behalf of their constituents. Then, there are also ways to address the problem of inadequate old town charters which fail to address the role of the town manager. Ambiguity must be banished from these documents. A strong and consistent council presidency or mayor commission type of government must be established. This is absolutely essential to manage the town manager. Or, the new charter may not even provide for a town manager but more affordable and manageable consultants. Regardless, what's needed is a classic check and balance type of arrangement that can work well.
Charter change is not the panacea for all of the a town's problems. It's possible that a completely spineless mayor could be elected who actually sees nothing wrong with schemes for over development or using eminent domain to fatten tax rolls to cover overspending. However, in such cases, the citizen has a recourse through the ballot box. At least elected officials have records that can be made campaign issues.
Benjamin Franklin's observation at the conclusion of the Constitutional convention applies here. When asked what had been accomplished, he replied that: "You have a republic, if you can keep it". The history of republics is littered with failures from Rome to Weimar. All too often, it is the citizens themselves through their apathy, fear, or lack of knowledge, that allow the abrogation of their rights. We need to get to work here in our small towns to "keep" alive our part of this republic.
Most of us who are involved in small town government are volunteers or are paid only a token amount for our services. We are either elected or appointed to our boards, councils or commissions. We have families and jobs and are seldom political scientists or professional public servants. Not being professionals puts us at a decided disadvantage when dealing with the ever growing power of town managers over our communities. It is important to remember that it is the elected town government which employs the town manager. Increasingly, however, town managers seem to ignore this fact and act as if this arrangement was the other way around. The growth of the role of the non-resident and unelected town manager has led to many conflicts as citizens fight to keep control of their town's destiny.
Most town managers are itinerant moving from town to town over the course of their careers. This profession has one of the highest turnover rates of any occupation. There are many reasons for this. Being a professional, town managers often quickly assume an attitude of thinking that they know what's best for their employer's town. Such an attitude inevitably leads them to indulge in all kinds of Machiavellian maneuvers to manipulate various members of the community to achieve their goals. After a few years of this, enough enemies will have been made so that the manager becomes an election issue and is then sent packing.
A second reason for the high turnover is the fact that many small towns are governed by charters that never envisioned the need for town managers. Such charters don't even mention the position and are full of ambiguities that allow for all kinds of mischief. No party clearly knows what is expected of the other. Often, these charters provide for no elected mayor or long term commission president to counter the machinations of a manager. Ridgely, for example, rotates its commission president yearly, making management of the town manager difficult at best. Again, over time, ill will builds up and the manager faces the risks of growing citizen hostility.
The third reason for the instability of the position is the fact that our own American political culture is changing. Many citizens have lost their political self respect and ability to act as sovereign decision makers. Our society is run more and more on a bureaucratized or corporate model with less opportunities for the development of these traditional citizenship characteristics. People are elected to office unprepared to govern. They act as if they are serving on a charity board instead of a real flesh and blood political entity. Once again, after a few years, these folks wake up, assert themselves and it's off to the hinterlands for the town manager. This constant turnover doesn't benefit any one. The towns suffer from inconsistent management and town managers suffer from unemployment.
Let me retrofit an old saying here. "town managers or their equivalent consultants, you can't live with them and you can't live without them". For our citizen volunteers charged with governing our towns, their job is no small matter. We need the expertise of either a town manager or assorted consultants. Without them, we will find ourselves rudely awoken one morning by our fellow citizens, ready to lynch us because the waste water treatment plant is overflowing and their toilets won't flush. There is no question that we need these policy wonks. However, we are the ones who know what is best for our towns and set the direction of the course where we want to take our towns. We must make it absolutely clear that we are in charge. Failure to do so leads to unbalanced budgets, higher taxes and water bills and excessive ugly development. These are problems concerning the town's quality of life which our elected resident legislators must be attuned to. They are the kind of problems that get little attention from a non-resident and unelected town manager. This creates the sad opportunity for a town government to morph into the strange proposition of being (to borrow and retrofit another old saying) " a government by and for the employees". At this point, the town manager can even run candidates for office who are little more than water carriers for the town manager. Such a proposition gets expensive and the need for tax revenues will be ever growing. It's here that schemes including eminent domain abuse to raise more tax revenues raise their ugly head. In this situation, New London, Connecticut, the pioneer of eminent domain abuse is only right up the road. With its $238,000.00 deficit (which preceded the global financial meltdown), is Ridgely heading in this direction?
First, the town manager should be a stakeholder in the community. They should be required to live in the town they will serve as a citizen and taxpayer. This doesn't mean renting an apartment to use a few nights a week. It means residency plain and simple which must be written into a contract and clearly understood before being hired. Then, residency must be enforced. The negligence of elected officials to carry through on this first step is setting the town manager up for failure. A potentially successful town manager could be wasted if allowed to ignore this important step. A strong correlation seems to exist between town manager residency and an absence of autocratic actions. Ridgely has failed to pass this test and the consequences are a huge deficit.
Elected officials must make it clear to the manager that they haven't hired a municipal union leader (sorry grandpa). The town manager is management and works for the elected officials serving the taxpaying town residents. This isn't to advocate not paying employees what they are worth. You won't, for example, be able to keep a police force in a small town with the state and county constantly trying to recruit your recruits with promises of more money. It is, however, about the loyalty of the town manager to the elected officials who hired him. Too often town managers view the employees as their first constituency. If the manager has somehow avoided step one and not really moved to town, what does it matter if requests for salaries and benefits for staff will far exceed the town taxpayer's median income? Also, it's not money out of his pocket if deficits grow as they have in Ridgely.
Development and growth for the sake of raising enough tax dollars to maintain an ever increasing payroll destroys towns. The town manager's bottom line is often in conflict with the town resident's interest in maintaining their quality of life. When a choice must be made between revenues or quality of life issues, the manager frequently favors the first. This is particularly true if he isn't a town resident. Great plans emphasizing "smart growth" and "traditional neighborhood development" will all fall by the wayside in an economic crunch. It is at this juncture that the mettle of elected officials and town planning commissions will really be tested. Ridgely has arrived at this point and our Planning and Zoning meetings are now battle zones.
Certain citizens drive autocratic town managers nuts. They are usually the activist types who overwhelmingly make up a town's volunteer commissions. These are the natural enemy for autocratic town managers because they also think they know something about how their town should be run. They also can still think and act like old fashioned American citizens. Usually they aren't of one political persuasion. One of my favorite towns has an interesting coalition including Greens and Paleo-Conservatives. As long as national issues are avoided, they work well together trying to preserve their town from what Russell Kirk termed "the enemies of the permanent things".
If your town manager is having activist troubles, expect him to exploit any possible resentment of the activist group and attempt to remake the assorted commissions in the town managers image. People with no experience will suddenly be held up as planning experts to replace long term planning commission members.
Most of us don't want any of the above to happen. To start with, elected officials ought to start acting like they understand the power they have and exercise it on behalf of their constituents. Then, there are also ways to address the problem of inadequate old town charters which fail to address the role of the town manager. Ambiguity must be banished from these documents. A strong and consistent council presidency or mayor commission type of government must be established. This is absolutely essential to manage the town manager. Or, the new charter may not even provide for a town manager but more affordable and manageable consultants. Regardless, what's needed is a classic check and balance type of arrangement that can work well.
Charter change is not the panacea for all of the a town's problems. It's possible that a completely spineless mayor could be elected who actually sees nothing wrong with schemes for over development or using eminent domain to fatten tax rolls to cover overspending. However, in such cases, the citizen has a recourse through the ballot box. At least elected officials have records that can be made campaign issues.
Benjamin Franklin's observation at the conclusion of the Constitutional convention applies here. When asked what had been accomplished, he replied that: "You have a republic, if you can keep it". The history of republics is littered with failures from Rome to Weimar. All too often, it is the citizens themselves through their apathy, fear, or lack of knowledge, that allow the abrogation of their rights. We need to get to work here in our small towns to "keep" alive our part of this republic.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Carraige House Moved, Budget Amended; Charter Change Needed
Photo by Candy Schwardon
(L- R: J.O.K. Walsh, President Caroline County Historical Society; Nancy Gearhart, Ridgely Historical Society; Mickey McCrea, builder and move director; Mike Peter, Mike's Custom Homes (handing check for the move); Ridgely Commissioner Kathy Smith and William Tarbutton, contractor)
(L- R: J.O.K. Walsh, President Caroline County Historical Society; Nancy Gearhart, Ridgely Historical Society; Mickey McCrea, builder and move director; Mike Peter, Mike's Custom Homes (handing check for the move); Ridgely Commissioner Kathy Smith and William Tarbutton, contractor)
Persistence pays off. Despite many hurdles Buck Herzog's carriage house has been moved to safety. Mike Peter the developer of Ridgeway estates has paid for the project. Despite the best efforts of our town administration to derail its preservation, dedicated residents simply wouldn't give up, and were able to at NO COST to the Ridgely taxpayers, save this piece of town history.
Other town issues don't present such a happy picture. The amended emergency budget for Ridgley spreads the pain all around. From the town manager's office, to the police department, and the public works department, there are now four fewer employees in Ridgely. This measure is meant to address the town budget deficit that has been growing over the last two years. Next fiscal year will be even more difficult when the effects of the global financial meltdown visits town. The only possible bright spot on the town's fiscal front, is the possibility that a scaled down Ridgely Park may be built. The new proposals will be presented at the town planning and zoning meeting this Wednesday at 6:00 PM.
Until Ridgely addresses the problem of its inadequate charter, we can expect a never ending round of problems that will lead to the need for emergency budgets. Our three commissioner system has not able to manage our unelected town managers. It has taken an extraordinary effort on behalf of the commissioners and citizens to reign in the budget. Arguably this effort would not have been needed if the town finances had been managed properly to start with. Remember, our elected commissioners passed balanced budgets which simply weren't adhered to.
I've been involved in Ridgely in many ways over the past 12 years and am in a position to pass judgement on whether or not our system works. And, it doesn't work very well. We need a system that provides for proper representation of all parts of town as well as a clear line of command that puts the Ridgely citizen's and their elected officials in charge all the time. The same common sense checks and balances that our federal system is based on are absent in Ridgely. In fact, the town manager isn't even mentioned in our 1937 charter. Our charter needs a 2008 reality check.
We need a strong mayor commission form of government and we need a ward system of representation. To devise such a system certain ground rules are needed. Communities or neighborhoods shouldn't be split up. Lister Estates is a neighborhood and Central Avenue is also a neighborhood. These citizens should be included in their respective ward as one group.
A fair ward system would establish a first ward in the old town (between 480 and the Railroad Park ) which includes all of Central Avenue east to the town boundary. In addition, the small area north of the Railroad Park including North Central, North Maple and North Maryland would be part of this ward. A second ward with all of Maryland Avenue west to the town border. The third ward would be Lister Estates and the fourth ward would be Oak View and Greenridge. These wards are equal in population with cohesive communities and each would have their own commissioner, who must live in the ward they are to represent. A fifth commissioner or mayor would be elected at large, representing the whole town. The mayor's vote would be the tie breaker on this five person commission arrangement. The town manager, or more affordably, the various consultants needed for the position, would be specifically included under the charter as positions under the supervision of the mayor and council.
Elected representatives, particularly the mayor, need to be paid for their effort. This isn't a high school beauty contest. I've known commissioners who put in over 40 hours a week. I also have known commissioners who are clueless, and can't wait for the commission meeting to adjourn. The discussion recently about the commissioners giving up their salaries, only reinforces how much of a token they have become with regards to the town manager (who is paid quite well). Only the current crisis has served to wake up our commissioners to again use their dormant powers. We the voters need to be vigilant and make sure the clueless variety of commissioner faces opposition at election time.
Finally, terms of office should be increased to four years with some of the commissioners up for election every two years. Yearly elections politicize too many issues here. The mayors term should be six years. And, there should be no term limits, since the only way the elected officials can counterbalance unelected administrative officials, is through their continuity in office.
To change the charter, a plan like the one outlined above needs to be submitted to the residents of Ridgely for a vote. The commissioners of Ridgely would have to authorize any vote and any group of citizens may head up such an effort.
The above suggestions are a practical way to introduce time tested American methods of good government into our town polity. Success will mean that a workable government will return to Ridgely, and an end to "emergency" budgets and other "seat of the pants" methods of administration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
