Planning And Zoning Blues II

The new scaled back plans for Ridgely Park presented to the planning commission raise a big question.

We are told that the plan reflects today's economic realities. We are also told no one is going to build anything for a while because of the state of the economy. In other words, nothing is going to get built until things get better.

The cutbacks in the plan presented Wednesday would require us to change many time tested town ordinances. If nothing is going to get built until prosperity returns, why should the developer plan represent today's recession reality? In other words, our ordinances should remain the same because if anything does get built it will be built in a time of returning prosperity. The developer will be able to afford to adhere to ordinances that are now deemed to be too expensive. Let's keep Ridgely, Ridgely!

Planning And Zoning Blues

At our planning and zoning meeting last night it was made clear that Ridgely Park won't be happening any time soon. Even if the project could start by February, it would not be desirable to do so because of the state of the economy.

We are over such a barrel because of the loan for the waste water treatment plant that there are those who say we should take whatever we can get. We are probably protected from this threat because nothing of either a good or sorry calibre is going to get financing for years to come.

Last night the scaled down project that was presented was very different from what we had previously approved. We would have to change both ordinances and our comprehensive plan to accommodate it. This isn't something to be undertaken lightly, since these laws are the means by which Ridgley has maintained its enviable quality of life over the years.

There are financial questions as well. We would still get the regular fees per house such as parks and recreation, public safety, and water/sewer. However, because of the reduction in scale, we no longer have the leverage to negotiate for money for streets and the extra $1 million which was to cover the new water tower and other necessities.

This project has been controversial. The burden of new development and the traffic and use of services it brings, were offset by an excellent plan and amenities. Now, that is no longer the case.

Elm Street, Ridgley Park's developer was invited back to present more complete plans. One thing we now all have is time, and we should not waste it by gutting our comprehensive plan and ordinances that have kept Ridgely such a fine small town. When good times return, we don't want a pack of rapacious developers to come here to take advantage of watered down planning and zoning ordinances.

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)

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.

A New Police Chief For Ridgely

Chief Merl Evans resigned December 1st. He was a dedicated public servant and I wish him well with his future endeavors.

In the past, Ridgely has formed search committees composed of citizens to select new police chiefs as well as a new town manager. It is important that this tradition be returned to. The current police chief was chosen by the town manager, and whether you like the job he did or not, the process by which he was appointed, undermined Ridgely's democratic traditions. The commissioners found out about the appointment in the newspaper. This should never happen again. With the still unresolved budget problems, we certainly need to carefully pick a new chief who will be able to provide our community the most for our increasingly limited tax dollars.

There are also town residents who have criticisms of our town police and now is the time for their voices to be heard. The list of critics starts with two of our town commissioners, Chuck Hunter, and Kathy Smith. I call upon our town commission to once again appoint a cross section of citizens to select a new police chief.

Ridgely Must Get Its Finances In Order

*** MEETING CANCELLED -- RESCHEDULED FOR NEXT WEEK, SAME TIME, SAME PLACE ***
*** RIDGELY TOWN HALL, NEXT MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2008 AT 7:OO PM ***

The Ridgely COMMISSIONERS WILL MEET THIS MONDAY AT 7:00 in the Ridgely House to discuss the emergency changes to the existing budget. This meeting is open to the public as meetings of the Commissioners should be. Spending is way off the mark, and the deficit has been growing LONG BEFORE the global financial crisis. It's important to get our house IN ORDER BEFORE we are hit by the consequences of the global financial fiasco. It is also important that the Commissioners do what is right and fair on behalf of the Ridgely taxpayers. We should not be made to bear the burden of cleaning up a mess that is not of our making. With the already high assessments on our homes, a tax increase, a water sewer increase, and even higher town fees would be unconscionable. The cuts to fix the budget must be made in house, in Town Hall. AND, this doesn't mean long term, and loyal employees, should be made to pay by those who presided over fiscal foolishness.

Remember, the Commissioners passed balanced budgets which were not adhered to. We need all the Commissioners to step up to the plate, and once again, manage those responsible for the situation. Do you all remember when we had the united and hands on Commission of Jare Wallace, Dale Mumford and Lou Hayes? They managed the town as the Charter requires. Look at what our fellow citizens accomplished: the Ridgely House reconstruction, attracting a new bank, attracting the first new construction on Central Ave. in 50 years, saving the Waste Water Treatment Plant, saving the run down homes on Central Ave., and starting a regular schedule of street and sidewalk maintenance. The town was not in debt.

We haven't had such unity and hands ON management since death took Jare from us. Try as they might, individual Commissioners since then have not been able to, for any length of time, put the Commissioners back in charge. And, a divided or hands OFF Commission has meant that the Town Manager has usually run the show. We the taxpayers certainly ARE NOT better off, and the focus of the town government has been on the staff which grows more and more expensive each year without providing additional services to our citizens. We are now deeply in debt.

It's time that we the residents of Ridgely come first again. New and additional fees are being considered for existing services. The Town Hall Administration should be making the needed sacrifices instead. Concerned citizens should attend the town meeting on Monday the 17th at 7:00 PM, or write a letter or email to the Commissioners that can be read into the minutes.

***11/17/08 - 10:05AM -- Commissioner Emergency Budget Meeting CANCELLED -- Rescheduled For Monday, November 24, 2008 at 7:00 PM ***

Preserving The Republic One Town At A Time

"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. The town where I live, 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, 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 town manager's expertise. 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". 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. What's a concerned citizen to do?

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.

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? It's not money out of his pocket.

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.

Certain citizens drive autocratic town managers nuts. They are usually the better educated activist types and they 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 resentment of the activist group. Good old fashion class war works for a time. Because many of the activists are better off and new arrivals, it's not hard to fan the flames of resentment among old timers of lesser means. However, once the water bills and taxes start to rise because of town manager policies, all will reunite in opposition to their common oppressor.

Town manager misuse of the town council executive session (which is basically a secret meeting) is a serious problem. Most states allow this for personnel reasons or talking to the town attorney about litigation. Unfortunately, it's often abused. Here the town manager strikes out at dissidents or even elected officials threatening them or accusing them of just about anything. Yes, anything, and the elected officials can't go public about this tactic or risk dismissal through their own ethics board. Usually, publicity aids the elected officials but now they must remain silent. Only when the town manager puts his "anything" into action can a resistance take form. Those he has targeted will have no need to restrain themselves at this point because the consequences of the secret agenda will have made their impact. The result is outrage from the community.

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 that they exercise on behalf of their constituents. Then, there are the 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. It's a classic check and balance type of arrangement that can work well.

Those who should serve on a charter change commission need know something about government and should be recruited from the various volunteer boards and commissions serving the town. This should also include former commission members as well as resident business people, clergy, volunteer firemen and the town attorney. To be representative of all the town, it probably needs to be at least as large as twelve people. The commission needs people with a strong sense of their role as American citizens. We need people who understand ordered liberty and checks and balances to the concentration of power.

Charter change is not the panacea for all of the problems towns have with their town managers. 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. It's even possible for a charter to have a town manager who is an elected official too. Once again, the recourse to the ballot box provides a proper check to abuse.

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.

Save Our Small Town Democracy

Increasingly the average citizen has less and less to say about the fate of their local community. Forces of economic globalization, political correctness and the growth of federal and state bureaucracies, take away more and more of the decision making ability from local citizens and their elected representatives. This trend is bad enough but becomes maddening if the citizens themselves seem more than happy to give up what little remains of their capacity for self government.

Here in Ridgely the commissioners are considering a proposed contract for the town manager that will cede much of their authority as our elected representatives to the unelected and non-resident town manager. It's a 5 year contract that makes it impossible for the commissioners to remove the town manager without buying out what remains of his contract. Such a buyout could bankrupt Ridgely. In the event the commissioners and town manager don't agree over policy, all the commissioners could do is refuse to fund whatever it is they don't want. Gridlock could be the order of business until the contract expires and a new town manager can be brought in to do their biding.

Let me say that I like our town manager and have worked with him in my position as chairman of our planning and zoning commission. I have no evidence that he is about to acquire the New London, Connecticut disease and start eminent domain proceedings against middle class housing blocks in order to redevelop those blocks into tax revenue rich upscale mansions. However, nice guy or not, no one in American government at any level deserves unchecked power. Our system of government is not built on blind trust. It's built on checks and balances to power. America has prospered throughout its history because of the institutional bulwarks that prevent too much power from being concentrated into too few hands. We are a government of "laws and not men". The proposed contract doesn't allow our elected commissioners to either "check" or "balance" the town manager and virtually puts our town government in the hands of one man.

Ironically, the whole contract issue has come up because the town manager has not relocated to Ridgely as he agreed to and is required by his current contract. The provision requiring Ridgely residency was meant to make the town manager a stakeholder in the community for which he is making so many decisions. Yet, the proposed contract is actually rewarding the town manager for not living up to his current contract.

At this point the contract is only a proposal. There has been no vote. The Commissioners haven't had more than a public discussion of some of it. I know they have questions too. Contact them and make a point of attending their meetings. They need to know that you don't agree with what has been proposed. What has been proposed should never see the light of day or be allowed to be enacted. The next meeting is Monday, September 10th, 7:00 at Town Hall.