That which is broached and never reaches the business agenda is often of greater interest than matters acted upon.
One such matter was a request and later with drawn by the Acting City Administrator for resolution approving the appointment of a special legal counsel for the mayor to protect her interests in the investigation of the $20,000.00 paid to a radio station for publicity and presence at last year's "town hall meeting" against crime.
Th 2010 Council had voted for an investigation to rule out any irregularities in the payment of funds that the Council had never approved. It was later revealed that after the City's check had been issued an anonymous donor had given $15,000.00. towards the station's fee.
The Council had selected an attorney who was a former Corporation Counsel and an active supporter of local candidates as the independent investigator. She subsequently withdrew since there could have been some question of a conflict of interest. No one else has been appointed by the Council to date to be the investigator.
Council members raised a question of the appropriateness for the City to provide legal aid to the Mayor who has not been accused of any criminal action. After a prolong discussion by the Acting City Administrator that the Mayor was entitled to legal advice in an investigation the matter was not acted upon.
At one point Councilor Reid and supported by Councilor Rivers argued that the amount the city paid was only a paltry $5,000.00. Unfortunately that is not the point. A check for $20,000.00 was issued from City funds without sanction by the Council. The subsequent $15,000.00 gift does not ameliorate the action.
This observer has a parliamentary opinion that would in effect make the matter moot. A resolution passed by the 2010 Council was only of interest to that Council and is binding only on that Council. When the body ceases to exist that resolution if not activated no longer is valid. To have such an investigation now, the 2011 Council should have to pass a new resolution.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
More crimes in the City. These folks think that by someone reimbursing a wrong that it makes it right. Jail time is in sight!
ReplyDeleteSince Reid and Rivers think so little of $5000 let them pony up that amount and then I would be satisfied to let it all go away.
ReplyDeleteIn a nutshell there you go. Problem solved.
Ohhhhhhh but I bet $5000 is worth a lot more when it's their money coming directly out of their pocket.
You can tell the absolute lack of any type of self respect those 2 have for themselves when they stand blatantly in front of the public acting the part of shills and cheerleaders for Mayor Jerry and Assistant Mayor Sharon. The only people more sorry than those 2 are the people who voted for them.
Whether the "investigation" goes anywhere or not, those 2 need to go as well as Mayor Jerry and Assistant Mayor Sharon. IF ONLY Chris Christie would come into Plainfield and clean Jerry's clock.
Well said Rob.
ReplyDeleteDoc,
ReplyDeleteAlso to clarify--the investigation would be conducted on behalf of the City of Plainfield, not on behalf of the City Council. The way the administration was attempting to frame the discussion was wrongheaded--an investigation is not a trial. No "defense" (the word Acting City Administrator repeatedly used) is necessary in advance of any kind of finding. Holding an investigation into how taxpayer funds are used on behalf of the residents is important. The amount of money is only part of the issue--the residents deserve to know where every dollar is going, and they have charged the governing body with protecting their interests and making sure that public monies being spent are approved by the council.
Rebecca
Councilor Williams,you are right in stating that an investigation of potential fiscal irregularities by the Council is for the citizens and not the Council. However I would think that 2011 Council if it wishes to pursue what seems to be a dormant matter would have to pass a new resolution.
ReplyDeleteAt the least do something or get off the throne.
Rebecca..thank you for chiming in. Is a pleasure to see some of the council members stating it in writing about why and what needs to be done.
ReplyDeleteWould you mind pointing out to Reid and Rivers that playing the shill and cheerleader to an incompetent ( no I don't believe the Mayor is smart enough to be a thief, Jerry maybe, but Sharon, no way ) is not exactly the purpose of their office.
We already know in advance Reid and Rivers would throw themselves in front of a bus for the Un-Dynamic Duo, but we don't need to be reminded of it at EVERY turn.
Reid and Rivers -- WE AS TAXPAYER GET IT..YOU WORK FOR JERRY AND SHARON NOT US..ok WE GET IT. STOP TRYING SO HARD TO REMIND US!.