Council President McWilliams in her comments about the Mayor's objection s to Ordinance 2010-22 inadvertently ignores one more reason for the twice monthly Council meetings. The Mayor's main objection would have been negated if this was the schedule. The Council's vote on those two Resolutions overriding the veto should be of great interest.
On the Consent Agenda are six resolutions (R347-10:R352-10) awarding contracts to "certain State approved vendors" for "amounts not to exceed". The sums are 347-10;$18000.00;348-10;$110,000.00;349-10;$196,000.00;350-10:$48,800.00;
351-10:$35,500;and 352-10:$320,000.00. The larger ones do not qualify for routine business and do not belong on the Consent Agenda. The fact that none were granted by competitive bidding also opens them to review before passing.
As expected the Administration objected to the Finances Committee's consideration of a Forensic Audit. -see report attached to agenda packet. The Administration's counter suggestion that it should be retroactive to past administrations is an attempt to blacken the McWilliam's years. I am sure that some innovative practices would also be present at that time. However an independent forensic audit of the past few years when critical financial post went unfilled might have the potential to lead to possible criminal action.
Regarding the CFO and Director of Finances and Administration positions , the acting CFO's certification of funds available for the Watchung Ave. phase II repavement has a serious error identifying the reconstruction to be between 7th St. and Hillside Ave. whereas the segment is from Hillside to Leland.
There is a suggestion that the same person holds the positions of Acting CFO and Acting Comptroller according to various documents. That at best is not advisable and may be in violation of the Charter.
R 343-10 refers to a Global agreement with Landmark as an attachment which is not in the packet.
I have already commented on the other two Resolutions , one about the PILOT grant and the other about the "Shotspotter" purchase.
The Ordinance creating a "Recreation Commission" and defining its overall powers on all recreation matters would effectively make the Division of Recreation superfluous except for personnel.
I do not expect that Ordinance 2010-23 will garner sufficient votes to quash the veto.
Too much going on to make tonight's meeting of reasonable length especially if there is the public turnout that it merits.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment