In as much as in the absence of backup material for the Resolutions on Tuesday night's Agenda there is little for comment. There is one exception; that is a Resolution not discussed at the Agenda Setting Session.
Resolution 036-12 per agenda; "COUNCILMANIC RESOLUTION REPRIMANDING MAYOR SHARON M. BRIGGS-ROBINSON AND REFERRING RESULTS OF WBLS EXPENDITURE INVESTIGATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND THE UNION COUNTY PROSECUTOR (RESOLUTION FORTHCOMING).
There can be no commentary on an unknown Resolution; however by its nature I would anticipate that if it is adopted as written it will be by a 4:3 vote. The report itself recommends a "reprimand" which would be difficult for all Councilors to reject. However, I can conceive that there will be a concerted effort by the minority members to amend the resolution to delete the referral to higher authorities.
It would be logical for any such referral to request an investigation to rule out any other fiscal irregularities due to the lack of a proper CFO.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Regardless of the wording of the resolution or the possible vote, if it takes something along the lines of 'WBLS' for the City Council to issue a reprimand to the mayor, it has lost sight of the forest for the tree.
There are many other, and more egregious, abuses of the public trust that have gone down, that in total would warrant a vote of no-confidence. City government is fraught with conflicts at all levels, and all branches.
My Tebowism on this is "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her". The resolution is entirely political, and besides, though cloaked as a sop to accountability, if laws were broken as it seems there were, we the people were injured, not just the Council, and it shouldn't take a resolution to get some sort of action from so-called higher authorities.
$20,000 is a drop in the bucket. It's something a few people want to hang their hat on, and it's totally legitimate to question the fiscal irregularity behind the spending. But the event was well-attended, and as events go it should be deemed a success as far as being a clarion call of some type.
There was a congressman there, a freeholder or two, city council members, a 'Grand Slam' team in full heat following its BOE victory, and many hangers-on to the cause of righting urban injustice. The place was packed with folks, and of course there was the trimmed-down figure of current MSNBC talking-head Al Sharpton readying himself for a hasty departure. In and of itself, we got a lot of event for 20Gs.
But events don't solve problems.
We bicker over a tree, while the forest is filled with hundreds of thousands of dollars that escape through uncompetitive bidding, pay-to-play sweetheart deals, and the occasional illegal contract to profiteering former public officials. We promote the enablers and the deception artists.
So the mayor was caught with her slip showing on this. Tisk-tisk. There's much more to reprimand her for. But there's plenty more than
$20,000 that slips through with the mayor and council in partnership.
Rock throwers, pick up your stones.
It could be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Then again, it may just be another event that ends with no result, no result needed, the nearest political straw in a generally contaminated wheatfield.
Mr. Goldstein's comments are well articulated and credible. The $20,000 is not an insignificant sum, but if we are exclusively viewing the financial picture it is a rounding error. There greater issue is character, from which other events devolve. In reviewing the conduct of the Mayor we have testimony of unbecoming conduct. Unbecoming to anyone, but emphatically unbecoming to a political leader: bullying of subordinates; profanity; arrogance; disregard for established protocols...and more.
Harkening back to the Hate Letter placed in employee mailboxes last year; a letter fraught with bigotry and libel, we found the Mayor recalcitrant to investigate and reveal the identity of the author. An author whom it may reasonably be assumed to be a Municipal employee.
These depredations of the public Trust are pervasive. Consider: the PMUA has within the last year awared a $107,00 settlement to a short term employee; the PMUA has recently made a settlement of $157,00 with the county for an egregious error which the PMUA made and perpetuated over a continuing 6 year periodapparently without the consent of the Board of Commissioners; and crowning these events the Board of Commissioners recently has awarded approximately $1,000,000 to two executives who retired of their own volition. To further exacerbate the latter the PMUA has refused to date to inform the public as to the basis of the claim(s) upon which the award was made.
We have a run away freight train on a downgrade with a populated city adjacent to a sharp curve in the tracks at the bottom of the hill. Where is the Super-heroe who will intervene?
To Alan and Bill, your comments are not without merit, but do we then do nothing? Is it OK for a public servant to do something inappropriate, and we turn our noses?
Remember that all this could have been avoided had the mayor spoken to the council a year ago. She is the one who decided that this was going to happen.
If this is what it takes to start the walls crumbling, then give me a horn.
And to Alan, you are so right, we the people were injured, but can do nothing about it except this handslap. Works for me instead of doing nothing.
Alan Goldstein for 3rd Ward Council.
Post a Comment