Thank the Lord for Bernice Paglia and her Plainfield Plaintalker Blog. We are so fortunate to have a professional journalist give an accurate and unbiased report on municipal activities. Thus we amateurs can be erroneous without misinforming the readers if the latter also read Bernice’s blog.
With that in mind I must first correct an error I made yesterday when I referred to a $1,000,000 Resolution. Because of my concern about how and why this sum had been authorized to be used by a designated vendor, I had forgotten that this was a Bond seeking Ordinance. This raised several questions including why the city would be put into further debt to repeat a process done only 4years previously. Also is it appropriate to name a recipient for project funds in the enabling ordinance? That would mean if a more qualified vendor was available none of the so raised funds could be used for that vendor’s services. Sounds convoluted but I am not a lawyer and don’t understand the unique intricacies of legislation written by lawyers for lawyers.
Fortunately second thoughts resulted in the deferring of that Ordinance so it cannot be introduced before the sole August business meeting of the Council and not adopted before September. I am convinced that it will be completely rewritten before the Council considers it again.
Isn’t it remarkable that three Council members; Council President Gibson, Councilmen Burney and Simmons as well as Plainfield Mayor Robinson-Briggs, City Administrator Dashield, Corporation Counsel Williamson did not attend the meeting.
Could this be an indication of the true importance of the Council in the eyes of the City Officials and our political leaders? This gives credence to Interim Council President Davis’s post meeting remarks that (not verbatim) the Council is in sympathy with the community’s concern’s over MRMC but does not have the power to act” Wow!
The City Charter Article II The City Council 2.1 Legislative power “The legislative power of the city, except as otherwise specifically provided by this chapter, shall be exercised by the city council”.
I would think that nothing could be clearer or more legally binding. Where does it state that action cannot and shall not originate in the council? Do the Council members understand their fiduciary responsibility to the citizenry? Or could they be subservient to a third party’s wishes?
Of the 35 resolutions on the Agenda, 24 were on the Consent Agenda which is voted on as a whole without any discussion. The Consent Agenda supposedly contains only items deemed to be routine and non-controversial. Resolutions must be taken off the Consent Agenda and voted singly if requested by a citizen or a Council member.
Three resolutions involving the total allocation of almost 2.7 million dollars for road reconstruction were removed by public request for not qualifying on the “routine” criteria. It would seem that it is not an everyday occurrence to spend $309,607.05, $747,591.25, and $1,636,151.40. As expected they were approved on individual votes.
Two resolutions were removed by Council Member’s request.
Of these 2 resolutions #322-08 failed by a 3:1 vote since a majority is considered to be based on the total Council members, not just those present filling a quorum. This Resolution called for approval of “Qualified vendors and Service Providers. Since this was a list of attorneys to be used for specific legal actions and in some cases only one name had been submitted, there was a citizen's questions concerning (1) How was the potential “Vendors/Service Providers advertised? The reply was that it was posted on the city’s website. (2) Were the County Bar Associations made aware of the positions? Reply “no”.
I noted during the public comment portion of the meeting that the City’s web site is so current that the last agenda posted for the Council was in May. Indeed although the Council has passed resolutions regarding the public information including the website it does not appear that any money spent is having results.
The other resolution removed from the consent agenda failed by a vote. It was for an application for $100,000 to the Urban Enterprise Zone Authority for the Downtown Maintenance Administration. There were serious unanswered questions about funds available and subsequent replenishing.
The public participation portion was devoted to request to support the appeal process if and when the Commissioner of Health grants Solaris CON request. Here was no Council comment prior to adjourning the meeting.
In my opinion that is the least the Council can do, but another mo nth will now pass with inaction, unless a special meeting is convened to specifically address the MRMC problem.
I again expressed my concern that the Council has not taken strong proactive action to be prepared for Solaris’s fait accompli of removing all viable services and equipment from the hospital prior to the Commissioner’s action. Even if the CON is denied there will be nothing left to function as a hospital. The Council should pay heed to Pastor Martin Niemoller’s comments about not speaking out. Although this was related to Germany’s genocide the principle is applicable to all actions that affect the peoples well being.
No comments:
Post a Comment