WWTP "Cancer" -- The Real State Of The Town Report

The following report is from the commissioner's meeting last night and sums up the dire straights our town is in. (click on report to enlarge.)

The Day Of Reckoning Has Arrived

I wrote the post below on March 15, 2008. Now, everything I feared would happen has materialized. There is no developer. We not only have the debt for the waste water treatment plant upgrade, but the former town manager's $238,000.oo deficit as well. And, don't forget this deficit preceded the global financial meltdown. It was made in Ridgely-- excuse me, Westover.

Our town's financial situation requires drastic action on the part of our commissioners. I want to remind everyone that commissioner Smith, and commissioner Gearhart before her, sounded the alarm to their apparently deaf fellow commissioners. Commissioner Mumford has been a vocal opponent of the fiscal foolishness long before being elected in April. Yet, the task of cleaning up after our former town manager has fallen on these two. We need to support both commissioner Mumford and Smith as they are forced to take drastic steps to salvage our town's finances.

No To Ridgely Roulette!

March 15, 2008

The residents of Ridgely should NEVER have to PAY FOR DEVELOPMENT. Yet, there is now a proposal before the Commissioners to borrow $1.5 million to improve our spray irrigation system because the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) won't approve plans for our Ridgely Park project until improvements are made. Paying back the loan could COST RESIDENTS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER WATER SEWER BILLS.Improving the spray irrigation system is an idea that has been around a few years. However, it was NEVER CONSIDERED AN EMERGENCY. Money to pay for these improvements was included in the Developer's Rights and Responsibilities agreement (DRRA)negotiated between the developers of the 403 home Ridgely Park development and the town. Ridgely Park was to pay for phase I of the spray irrigation upgrade prior to the issuance of their 185th building permit, followed by the funding for phase II of the new spray irrigation system.ONLY A FEW MONTHS AGO, OUR TOWN MANAGER WAS MAKING THE CASE TO MDE THAT OUR SYSTEM WAS FINE AND COULD ACCOMMODATE THE FIRST PORTION OF RIDGELY PARK AND SOME SMALLER DEVELOPMENTS TOTALING 247 UNITS.NOW, WE ARE BEING TOLD THERE IS AN EMERGENCY AND THE TOWN NEEDS TO BORROW MONEY ASAP. What has happened? How in only a VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME ARE WE FACED WITH AN EMERGENCY WATER SEWER PROBLEM? A letter to the town received from MDE dated February 15th stating that "any additional allocations should await the installation and successful operation of the newly configured spray irrigation system" highlights our problem. Some small developments totalling 27 homes are permitted but NO OTHER DEVELOPMENT WILL BE APPROVED UNTIL SPRAY IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENTS ARE MADE. This is the "EMERGENCY" and it means that it is obvious that the upgrade is to accommodate new development. This means that MDE grant funding is out of the question since there are no MDE grants made for development.The Town Manager's solution is the quick fix or a loan for $1.5 million. Such a course of action is potentially catastrophic. Our budget is already way off target and the loan will be added to what we already owe for our existing system. This, of course, is going to be done with in the context of a record housing market slump.Ridgely Park as noted above is contractually obligated to pay for the system upgrade. But, the agreement allows them 184 building permits for 184 houses on our current system BEFORE this obligation must be meant. Since MDE won't allow this, do we want to carry a $1.5 million loan hoping Ridgely Park stays through this point? If they walk, the debt is all ours.This piece of ground will eventually be developed. If Ridgely Park leaves town it would be a shame for the town. Ridgely Park is an excellent concept put forth by people who have pioneered smart growth and traditional neighborhood development in Maryland. These people and their plans respect our community. However, RIDGELY PARK NEEDS TO STEP UP TO THE PLATE and to make the improvements to our spray irrigation system FIRST, and not AFTER the 184th home.GOING INTO DEBT IS A HUGE GAMBLE FOR THOSE OF US WHO LIVE HERE. THE TOWN MANAGER WHO PROPOSES THIS COURSE OF ACTION ONLY STAYS HERE A FEW NIGHTS A WEEK IN A RENTAL AND HASN'T BECOME THE STAKEHOLDER IN OUR COMMUNITY THAT WE HAD HOPED. He certainly won't feel our pain if he is wrong. In fact, the Town Manager can pick up and leave for another job anytime.The Commissioners and Ridgely Staff will be meeting with the Ridgely Park developers Monday, March 17th at the Ridgely House at 6:00 PM. Commissioner Gearhart is opposed to taking out the $1.5 million loan. The best solution would be for the developers to include all the payments for the spray irrigation upgrade FIRST and not after the 184th home. Then, of course, the town would not need a loan. This, in fact, is the only solution to our problem that puts the residents of Ridgely first.There are times in life when we all must take a stand. Let the Commissioners know that WE THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE WANT THEM TO PUT RIDGELY FIRST. DON'T MAKE A $1.5 MILLION GAMBLE WITH OUR FUTURE. WE THE RIDGELY RESIDENTS DO NOT SUPPORT ANY LOANS FOR DEVELOPMENT!!

FIRED!!!

The Ridgely town manager was sent back to Westover at the commissioner's meeting tonight. Specifically, it's because of his failure to honor his contract and live here. As most of you know there are about 238,000 other reasons too.

All I can say is please never let us have to go through this again. The problems could have been solved a couple years ago. We the taxpayers of this town will pay a heavy price for more town management than we bargained for. At $80,000.oo, do we really need a town manager? Maybe it's time to reconsider the whole idea of the town manager.

God bless our courageous commission majority of Kathy Smith and Dale Mumford for the stand they have taken!

Real Change Comes To Town

Dale Mumford is running unopposed for Ridgely town commissioner. The deadline for anyone else to register passed at 4:30 Friday and this talented and capable man will fill the empty commission seat in two weeks. Congratulations and thank you for taking on such a task during these tough times for our town.

Also, thank you Kathy Smith for standing up for our town. The cavalry has arrived, and I'm sure that together, you and Dale are going to put things in Ridgely House back in order. With the the town financial crisis (which preceded the global crisis) looming, this change couldn't have come any sooner.

Another change is coming to town too. For the past week, our town manager has been under consideration for the position of town manager of Onancock, VA. Delmarvanow.com, a news blog, has been following the story for over a week now. Yesterday, the town picked someone else for the position but our town manager was on the right track with such a move.

"The times they are a changing" and Ridgely is once again back in the hands of its citizens.

It Can Get Worse

Toblog has been chronicling the growth and consequences of unelected non-resident executive power in Ridgely. We now have a $238,000.00 budget deficit from a town administration that acts as if the town government is meant to be one that is "by and for the employees". There is hope here, however, that we the residents are about to finally put things back in order in the "Ridgely House".

The problem is national in scope with the best example of the worst case, eminent domain abuse in New London, Connecticut, capturing national headlines. There to keep the administration money go round rolling, middle class homes were condemned to make way for upscale condos to fatten the town's tax roles.

Closer to home we have a deteriorating situation in Pokomoke City. Just how bad things can get is outlined below in a post from another DelMarVa blog, the Pokomoke Tattler. (The "Tattler" is linked to Toblog daily on the "Links To The World" sidebar.)

Pokomoke Tattler -- March 25, 2009

"Did You Ever Wonder How Much the Pocomoke City Manager Makes Per Year?

This is question that I have been asked time and time again: How much does City Manager Russ Blake really make?

Now lets put this into perspective…If he were the Manager of local store or company, it would be absolutely NONE of our business.

However, City Manager Russ Blake works for the City of Pocomoke City, Inc., and because this is a governing body that receives State and Federal money, you and I have every right to know just how much our city employees are being paid.

Since we were told by the former City Finance Director that Russ Blake would routinely tell her to ADD another $1000.00 to his paycheck for his yearly raise; a raise that was not voted on by Council, but decided upon by HE, HIMSELF our interest has definitely been pricked.

Or how about having his water bills regularly adjusted on his rental properties? Yes, this is something that was witnessed numerous times as well.

All of these questions and all of these statements made me wonder !

So a couple of weeks ago a Freedom of Information Act request, was submitted to the City Clerk, asking for this information.

Guess what the City’s response was????

Please deliver a deposit check in the amount of $1,618.oo to cover the costs the clerical costs of finding and sorting and redacting information billed at $30.00 per hour.

Thirty three years of Un-Elected dictatorship, and you and I cannot fire him, but we can’t even find out how much this person makes, how much he gets taken off of his water bill, how much he expenses on an annual basis….NOTHING, without giving them even more money.

This is our money that we have paid through our taxes year after year, this should be available to any citizen at anytime that City Hall is open during normal business hours.

We the Citizens of Pocomoke City are helpless to change this unless we demand that our Council Members change the Charter so that the City Manager does not have complete and final say and rule over everything in our City.

We must demand that they change it so that the City Manager answers TO the Mayor and Council!

At this point in time Russ Blake answers to NO ONE!"

Why The Town Is In Trouble -- Bull Buster III

In today's "Times - Record" our town manager is quoted as saying that "the housing crisis led to a decrease in revenue for the town". This is very misleading. Our problems preceded the global financial meltdown and THE HOUSING CRISIS HAS NOTHING WHAT SO EVER TO DO WITH THE DIRE STRAITS RIDGELY IS IN. It is true that part of the problem has to do with the fact that few developer fees are being collected because little is being built. HOWEVER, this is because the town simply doesn't have the sewer allocation to build which is why the town is upgrading its waste water treatment plant. The waste water treatment plant upgrade is meant to accommodate the planned and approved Ridgely Park development. This project could not go forward last year when the Maryland Department of Environment wouldn't sign off on it because of inadequate sewer capacity. Stop the spin and admit the mistake.

Further, the article is full of very deceptive numbers about "new" sources of revenue that will lead to a balanced budget. Where are the 58 housing permits the town manager speaks of? If they are out there somewhere, they are not for 2009 and will have nothing to do with this year's fiscal fiasco.

The bottom line is this. Spending was out of control at the same time revenues were down due to our sewer capacity problem. The commissioners passed balanced budgets which were not adhered to. AND, THE BUDGET SHOULD NOT BE BASED ON DEVELOPMENT REVENUES NOT YET PAID. OUR PROBLEMS IN RIDGELY ARE MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. IT'S UP TO THE PEOPLE OF RIDGELY TO ELECT COMMISSIONERS WHO WILL FIX OUR PROBLEM ASAP.

Toblog Bull Meter Busted After "State Of The Town Address"

My poor bull meter short circuited shortly after the town manager's "State of the Town Address". Therefore, this edition of Bull Busters will have to proceed on its own to cut through the largest amount of bull seen in Ridgely since my brother in law(a dairy farmer)fertilized my vegetable garden in 1996.

I can't even figure out where to begin. We can dismiss fluff that's irrelevant to Ridgely like our town manager's story about the vice-president, his failed congressional campaign (who cares?) or "30 years of municipal experience". (Although we might ask were they like the Ridgely experience times 30?)

First and foremost, the "address" is an attack on the people of Ridgely for electing Kathy Smith commissioner last year. She is mentioned early on under the Rubik of the "crisis" that "intensified after the municipal election of 2008". Duuh? Do you mean when Kathy won? Thank God someone else noticed that all is not well in our ship of state. She is also cryptically referred to as "those who criticise need to fully comprehend what they do to morale"..."all we have to do is look at our police department". In fact, I wonder if Kathy has replaced the Maryland Department of Environment (MDE) as the town manager's favorite bogeyman? If only he could blame the global economy too. We, of course, know he can't because Ridgely's situation has preceded the global financial meltdown.

Back to the police. We have two less police officers because we can't pay them. We can't pay them because of poor management decisions. Besides the budget deficit, we lost county tax differential money because we weren't really maintaining a 24/7 force as the town manager claimed.

The town manager's salary and benefits package would pay for two officers. If given the choice, I bet most Ridgely residents would choose to hire back two officers and let the town manager go. Good police are are a lot more useful to the citizens of this town than the architect of a $238,000.00 deficit.

Another issue taking up a lot of ink was Zeb Brodie. I'm very happy that we have an investor in town opening new businesses. However, the "embarrassing, and frustrating experiences" which the town manager says that the investor went through are 100% of the town manager's making. The town manager knew what the planning and zoning ordinances required. Yet, chose to ignore them and "streamline" a process for approval circumventing our citizen planning commission. Our planning commissioners (being residents) knew that there were questions about the Cyber Ridge proposal. I think that the town manager must have known that there would be controversy too. Had normal procedure been followed, the business could have opened a couple of months before it did. As it turned out the planning commission took the heat on this and other issues orchestrated by our very own town manager. Mr Brodie, welcome to Ridgely. I'm sorry for the rough introduction to our town but the town manager doesn't live here. We who do live here, however, appreciate your businesses.

Finally, let's talk trash. How is it that we have to pay more and more and reinstate the trash fee which the town manager identifies as a culprit for our money woes? Denton's new contract is charges $4.95 per household. Ridgely is $6.95 and going up. Why can't we use the same company as Denton? More customers might lower the rate from this provider even more. We pay the town manager a huge salary to figure out such questions.

I have to hand to the town manager, he had to work pretty hard on his "Address" (on our dime) to turn our town's financial "sow's ear into a silk purse". Unfortunately for us, the reality of having to pay for so many mistakes undermines any amount of lofty rhetoric. Next year we should do away with this pretentious pomposity and save the taxpayers some money.

The "Address" ends with "unless someone has another idea or another plan, I do not intend to abandon the "kitchen" while the soup is still on and work needs to be done". There are so many ideas and other plans from so many citizens in Ridgely that would return our town to sanity that they can't be listed here. The "kitchen" isn't only too "hot" (because of the town manager), it's about to burn the rest of the house down. He can have his home in Westover, but let us have our town back and put Ridgely's financial fire out.

(Please note that the "Address" can be obtained at town hall. For some reason, it hasn't been posted as is usual on the town website. I guess I'd be embarrassed if I wrote so much bull too.)

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.

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.

A Tale Of Two Commissions

The following is from the November town meeting minutes:

"Joe went back to the Ethics Board nomination. He said in the past, when an individual has been serving on a commission, and has been inquired about it and wants to be reappointed, the normal thing has been that the commissioners have reappointed that individual. If there are other people who are interested in serving, there are other commissions and committees to get involved in. We have an individual who for two months has stated that he would like to be reappointed, and he feels it is disrespectful to him to hold this off. The policy has been in the past that if the name is brought up, unless there is something dramatically wrong, or some concern, that the individual would continue for at least another term."

Herman Dunst was reappointed. Last month Jeff Garrett asked the he be reappointed to the Planning and Zoning Commission and forwarded his application to the Commissioners who tabled it. There is someone else interested but by applying the Town Managers own words above, this request should be channelled into another commission. What is the difference between these two commissions and commissioners?

Our Planning and Zoning meetings haven't been the most pleasant recently as we continue to stand up to pressure to approve anything that comes before us. It's not the Planning Commissions job to undo the Town Manager's deficit. We have ordinances on the book which have succeeded in keeping Ridgley a great small town. Despite the pressure, we have been upholding these ordinances. We have not been too popular with the Town Manager. Removing long serving Planning Commissioners and changing the Planning Commission make up might make the whiz from Westover happy but will leave Ridgely seriously at risk.

When Pigs Fly

Our town manager has written a letter to me demanding that I apologize by March 2nd for my blog post "Charter Change Would Disenfranchise Elderly Voters". He doesn't seem concerned with the main point of the post which is summed up in the title. Instead, he's concerned that the town clerk gets credit since it was her idea to begin with. Whew...this is "I was only following der orders" turned on its head. Regardless of the who first came up with this brain fart, the fact remains that it was the town manager who presented this "idea" using the words "we" and "I propose" repeatedly at the January 26th workshop. No matter what the source, this proposal would disenfranchise voters not known for their fealty to the "town manager party" only a short time before the town election.

Instead of me apologizing for reporting the facts, I think that the town manager owes us an apology. In fact, I can think of 238,000 reasons for an apology as our budget deficit (which preceded the global financial crisis) leads to the shrinking of town services including police protection.

Even The Fig Leaf Has Fallen

The Ridgely town manager is contractually obligated to live in the 21660 zip code. When he was hired he made it clear that he understood what it meant to live here and repeatedly informed those at town meetings that he and his family were moving here. Many towns require the town manager to live in or near the town in order to become a stakeholder in the community. Being a stakeholder is a good way to ensure that a town manager doesn't run up huge deficits or become too cozy with developers trying to take advantage of a town.

Our town manager never fulfilled the original requirement of his contract. He simply rented a house on 480 where he stayed a few nights a week while remaining with his family in Westover. He used the rental address for a new drivers licence and a majority of the commissioners let the issue pass. Now it appears that even this pretense of residency has fallen by the wayside. It certainly doesn't look like the town manager is living in the 480 rental. Even this fig leaf has fallen. Is he staying somewhere else in the area a few nights a week? Have the commissioners pressed him on the issue which is still important to many of us? If not, why?

Since Ridgely has a $238,000.00 deficit (which predates the global financial meltdown), some may not worry so much about the town manager's residency requirement. On the other hand, if this requirement had been enforced to begin with (making the town manager a resident stakeholder in our community) many of us believe that our financial situation might be quite different.

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.