A charter amendment approved by the Greenbelt City Council on April 11 will give council the ability to waive the requirement that the city manager must live in Greenbelt. The amendment passed on a 4 to 3 vote with Councilmembers Colin Byrd, Judith Davis and Rodney Roberts opposed. The amendment will go into effect on May 31 unless petitioned to referendum by May 21.
Public Input
There has appeared to be little public interest in this change. Council held two public hearings on March 23 and April 1. The councilmembers had expected more public comment than could be accommodated at a regular meeting so they allocated two hours per hearing and held one hearing on a Saturday. However, the first hearing lasted about 30 minutes, excluding a 15-minute grace period to accommodate late arrivals (with none appearing). The second hearing was even shorter, clocking in at about 20 minutes excluding a 15-minute recess.
Only two people spoke on this item at the April 11 council meeting. Catherine Meetre, of Research Road, said that citizens, not council, should decide what powers are appropriate for council to wield. She was also concerned that the amendment giving council the authority to require some managers to live inside the city while allowing others to reside elsewhere could allow council to discriminate and open the city to legal liability. She announced that she and others will attempt to collect enough signatures to place the measure on the ballot as a referendum.
Those interested in pursuing a petition drive face a tough challenge. To achieve the requested referendum, 3,010 registered voters (20 percent of the 15,047 registered voters at the time of the last council election) must sign. When the charter was written, Greenbelt maintained its own voter rolls, which mostly included those interested enough in city affairs to vote. Now, however, the city uses the county voter rolls, which include many people who do not participate in city elections. For example, in 1989 there were 3,636 registered voters, 2,363 (65) percent of whom voted. In contrast, in 2021 there were 15,047 registered voters, 2,675 (17.7 percent) of whom voted. In order to place the referendum on the ballot, Meetre and others will have to obtain the signatures of more registered voters than actually showed up to vote in the last election. The rules for amending city charters are established by state government and are outside of the city’s control.
Meetre also questioned why the recruiting brochure prepared by the city’s search firm Baker Tilly did not mention the charter requirement that the manager live in Greenbelt. At the time that this was prepared, council had not yet publicly raised the issue of the residency requirement.
Meetre called upon Councilmember Kristen Weaver to withdraw the charter amendment resolution and for the city to implement a referendum on the residency issue. Council did not take her advice.
Bill Orleans, a Greenbelter who attended both public hearings, said most speakers at those hearings favored retaining the residency requirement.
Council Takes
Prior to opening up the floor for public comment, councilmembers discussed their views on the amendment. Councilmembers Rodney Roberts and Judith Davis charged that the change was being made to benefit one person, presumably the interim city manager, which Roberts termed wrong and unethical. Councilmember Ric Gordon and Mayor Emmett Jordan denied this. Jordan said that council has a diverse pool of applicants to choose from with several who live in the local area.
In an email, Jordan told the News Review that Baker Tilly, the executive search firm assisting the city “received 70 applications to date (the search is still open). Twenty-six of those applicants were residents of the region. None were Greenbelt residents.
“After some initial screening work by Baker Tilly, 12 “qualified” applications have been forwarded to Council that meet our stated criteria. Six of these are residents of the region. Others are previous residents.”
Roberts said the resolution was a bad idea for many reasons. Having a city manager “living the same life” as residents, he said, has helped make Greenbelt a well-managed city. If the resolution does not go to referendum, he claimed citizens lose their right to have final say on the charter. He further argued that the city manager can have more effect on the city for good or bad than a councilmember. He objected to the omission of the residency requirement from the recruiting brochure.
Weaver noted that most of the people she spoke with had not considered the issue or were not familiar with the requirement. Only one person she spoke with opposed the charter change, 10 were generally supportive while another wanted codified guidelines rather than leaving the issue solely up to council’s discretion.
She acknowledged that it would have been better if council had considered the residency issue earlier.
Weaver and Pope also mentioned the resident survey undertaken early in the search process where only 30 percent of the 287 respondents ranked residency as one of their highest priorities in choosing a manager. Councilmember Judith Davis countered that since residency has always been a requirement, respondents may have taken it as a given.
Davis pointed out that some believe the issue is to allow the city to get applicants from outside the city, which it already does, rather than allowing council to permit the selected manager to live outside the city. She said she would not vote for the motion as she believes the manager should live in Greenbelt in order to be fully aware of residents’ needs and values and pay the taxes imposed by the budget themself. The manager should be nearby as roads may not be passable in an emergency.
Weaver and Gordon noted how much the world has changed since the charter was written with better communications, transportation and technology and increased ability to work remotely. Gordon noted that just because someone moves here does not necessarily mean they will be involved in the community. He said that the majority of residents he spoke with want council to make the decision based upon the actual circumstances. If an applicant lives in Hyattsville or Berwyn Heights, he asked, does the city really need them to move here? On the other hand, if an applicant from California is selected, they should move to Greenbelt, he said.
Jordan said that the question of residency is very important to him. Council needs the discretion to look at candidates as individuals and make the best possible choice. If the resolution passes, he noted, the residency requirement will remain in the charter but “just lets council give a waiver.” He noted that waivers need not be forever. For example, College Park gave its city manager, who already lived in Virginia, a two-year waiver from the residency requirement since their kids will complete their schooling during that period.
Jordan said that the city has a diverse pool of applicants, some of whom live in the local area.
Byrd stated that all candidates under consideration are strong, and said he felt that anyone under consideration should consider living here.