The Mayor And Council Open Retreat

As Rockville Central readers know, last night the Mayor and Council held a two-part meeting at "the Cottage," a small and very inviting outbuilding next to the Glenview Mansion. Part One was a closed retreat, while Part Two was an open, regular meeting of the Mayor and Council.

This meeting had been controversial. It began life as just a retreat, scheduled for June 4. This fit into a series of quarterly "mini-retreats" that the Mayor and Council voted to hold at a meeting in March. The "retreat" idea has since attracted criticism, with some saying it runs counter to the transparent ethos that Our Fair City's leaders wish to promote, others saying they don't believe such a retreat can really be held without discussing policy (and hence possibly running afoul of the state's open meeting laws), others saying that the Mayor and Council has plenty of work to do without wasting time and effort on "working relationship," and still others pointing out that there's a seeming disconnect as they cancel public meetings due to lack of agenda items while at the same time holding closed meetings. (I am trying to paraphrase the arguments here.)

The retreat, at some point, changed dates and morphed into its current two-part arrangement, which prompted a new round of criticism. If the Mayor and Council is to hold a "regular meeting," why hold it off-site, where it is difficult or impossible to video effectively? In fact, it was suggested that I video the proceedings to provide a record. I chose not to do that, for technical as well as philosophical reasons. While there is nothing to stop any citizen from videotaping an open meeting of the Mayor and Council (which includes meetings like the West End Town Meeting where I and the City were strangely barred by the Board of WECA from recording), in this instance it seemed to violate the spirit of what the meeting is about.


Council members Piotr Gajewski and Anne Robbins chose not to attend the closed "retreat" part of the meeting. In various email messages, they had made their intentions known. They talked about different reasons: Piotr felt that such retreats ought not to be held at all, while Anne felt that the agenda for this particular retreat was not well prepared and also objected to the lack of a facilitator for the meeting. (Again, I am paraphrasing the arguments and I welcome Piotr and Anne to correct me in the comments.)

Readers of this space and listeners to our weekly radio show know that, for my part, I don't think it outrageous at all that the Mayor and Council meet on their own to keep their inner workings on track. Nor do I worry that this is taking away from other important work. I believe the Mayor and Council work hard, and will gladly work harder where it is needed.

All this is to say, last night's meeting carried with it a fair amount of expectation. I have had a number of emails from people asking me "how it went."

It was a quiet little gathering in the cottage, fewer than I have seen typically show up at Mayor and Council meetings. By my count, there were seven observers: two press (Sentinel and Gazette), one idiosyncratic blogger (me), and four real, live citizens. So we were well-balanced by the number of principals around the table, which included the entire Mayor and Council (five, once eight o'clock rolled around) and Scott Ullery, the city manager. Don't count the press and the citizens were outnumbered!

In fact, the intimacy of the setting and the number of observers made me oddly feel like I had to keep stifling an urge to jump into the conversation, as if I was an actual participant. (Readers will be pleased to learn I was able to control myself.)

Enough, Brad, what happened in the meeting?

Well, first they argued a bit about whether they ought to be meeting. (There were only three votes to even begin the meeting, with two abstentions.) Mayor Susan Hoffmann read into the record a letter from the City Attorney that outlined the ins and outs of the state's open meeting law. She said that it made clear that the kind of meeting they had just held (the retreat) was permitted. Piotr objected, saying that was a conclusion he did not support.

Then they got down to business and reviewed the vision priorities established in their "real" retreat in January.

And to be honest, there was not a heck of a lot of substance that came up. Which is not to say they did nothing. To the contrary. I'll just highlight a few things:

• There was a lengthy discussion of whether, and in what ways, the priorities established by the Mayor and Council actually end up reflected in the budget. Scott Ullery pointed out that the budget and its quarterly reports are organized around these priorities. In some ways, this seemed satisfactory, but in other ways not. There was a clear thread (especially in listening to Council Member Phyllis Marcuccio and Anne Robbins, who have experience being in the minority and report feeling as if they are being excluded -- but this did not not just come from them) that a more methodical and explicit connection between planning and budgeting would be useful. Council Member John Britton expressed a desire for more informal, and earlier, previews of some of the basic directions that the City Manager's budget appears to be taking, so that the Mayor and Council can discuss it and think about it before it gets presented and they have to start making serious decisions.
  
  
• Somewhere around here (actually it was at 8:25), Piotr Gajewski's wife came in with a video camera, set it up on a tripod in the corner, and walked out. This prompted Council Member Phyllis Marcuccio to object that this violated the spirit of the retreat and was nonprofessional. Mayor Susan Hoffmann asked if, in fact, the camera was rolling and Piotr Gajewski answered he did not know. Two separate audience members went over to the camera to see if it was going and the consensus was it probably was. John Britton angrily said it was a distortion of the spirit of the meeting, and Piotr Gajewski answered that citizens are allowed to video open meetings. Then they settled down and got back to the meeting, with the untouched camera sitting over in the corner. I assume, therefore, there is a record somewhere.
  
  
• In talking about the "Green Rockville" priority, John Britton asked if the City offers any incentives for property owners to make energy-efficient modifications to their property (like solar panels). This seemed to get widespread interest and I would not be surprised if we saw something like that become law.
  
  
• The group discussed their upcoming duty to consider, amend, and pass the City's new zoning ordinance. The thing is a behemoth, notwithstanding the excellent work that went into it by the RORZOR committee and then the Planning Commission. The group agreed to, if necessary, double up on meetings (adding in a televised worksession into the mix in some weeks) in order to get it done. They are shooting for getting it done by the August 4 recess. However, there is a division: Piotr Gajewski asked that, if their work is not completed by recess that they continue working until the new zoning law is done -- people are waiting to build. Others said that they thought it was possible, with hard work, to meet the deadline but that if they do not, they do not feel it is important to suspend recess. Mayor Hoffmann pointed out that it is not like the Iraqi Parliament taking summer off when they had not yet completed work on their nation's fundamental establishing documents. Phyllis Marcuccio pointed out that the citizens of Rockville demand and eserve the Mayor and Council to do its best job on this law, which will affect how Rockville looks for decades, and that this should trump other considerations, such as whether people are waiting to build or not.
  
  
• Speaking of worksessions, the group took up the question of Boards and Commissions. There is an ongoing question about whether the current system could be improved and made more systematic (I am of two minds about that, to tell you the truth -- I am not necessarily opposed to an explicitly political appointment system). That facet of this issue came up, and no decisions were made. However, a new wrinkle was discussed. There is little satisfaction currently with the way the work of the boards and commissions gets integrated (or even considered) by the Mayor and Council. It appears that many commissions believe that their Mayor and Council liaison is making regular reports on their work, but there is in fact no mechanism for that. It appears that the Mayor and Council will be moving (back) to a system where each commission holds a worksession with the Mayor and Council at least once per year. Piotr Gajewski did not agree with this idea, saying that any Council member is welcome at any time to any commission meeting and so that access should suffice. Notwithstanding that, I would expect to see more joint worksessions moving forward.
  
  
• The group discussed Community Engagement, which is one of the priority areas. Nothing concrete was decided. However, this is my own professional area, so I have strong views on the issue. (No, I am not angling for a consulting gig with the City.) In a later article, I'll write more on this subject.
  
  
• As the group discussed economic development, they made it very clear that they want to e City staff to move on developing and implementing a coherent branding campaign. The communications arm of the City has been understaffed but now has key positions filled and has added a staffer, so that they have more capacity to handle routine communications work (press releases, etc.) and can think more strategically. The group reiterated that they want to see robust movement on this issue -- so watch for a new City tagline soon! And more.
  
  

No doubt I have missed something. I hope others who were there will add bits and pieces in the comments section of this article. That includes the Mayor and Council, as well as the City Manager!!

The meeting ended on the dot at ten and, as I left, Bailey Quinonez from the Sentinel and Contessa Crisostomo from the Gazette were interviewing members of the Mayor and Council and the City Manager, so I am sure their pieces later in the week will have lots better information than this rambling bit.

Me, I wanted to get home to see my family so, thankful that I am not a real live journalist but instead just a private citizen, I hightailed it home.