There is little that I can report or comment about the Resolutions and Ordinances that will be on the agenda this coming Monday night since I left at 11:50 am and I understand that it was about 12:30pm that the Public comment session took place.
A resolution that was rejected for consideration was one that would have alloted less than $2700.00 for Councilors Reid and Rivers to attend the 2012 National League of Cities Convention in DC. Using the PMUA extravaganza as an excuse and a economy vote last year to limit meetings to instead as the reason to not sanction this expenditure.
I believe this to be a mistake in judgement. If the participants are truly interested in broadening their knowledge in the area of interest in order to act with acumen in municipal matters, this type meting could be of great value. If they are going for just a paid joy trip such action would be wise.
I believe although to date too often Rivers actions have been clouded by tunnel vision and party loyalty she is young enough and civic oriented exposure of this type could be beneficial in her participation in municipal affairs. She might even b e able to share pearls with her fellow Councillors.
.
The costs should typically include standard travel, mid range accommodations. per diem food allowance and of course all convention attendance fees.
There used to be a Council expense fund in the budget. Because in the past it was abused doesn't mean that it should not be there now. The sun is small the return could be a better Councilor.
Resolutions appointing the Compliance Officer and the Registrar of Vital Statistics were by consensus not put on this month's agenda.
Anew software and support program for the City' financial transaction will be voted on Monday night, but one appointing Investors Savings as the sole repository of City funds was rejected for consideration.
It was about this point that I left the meeting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Goodmorning Doc are you saying that the council voted down indivduals from going to get training to become better council member's. I really hope that's not the case.
ReplyDeleteRenee
Hi Renee yes that was the case. I was at the Council meeting in full support of the BOE election moving to Novemeber. I stayed to the end to witness more of the nonsense from the Campbells. When the item came up i could not believe it was pulled. This is why Plainfield is Stuck. The council member's need to broden their horizons. If this is a National convention one could imagine the wonderful information that will be displayed. SHAME ON THEM
ReplyDeleteRenee,That is what I wrote. If they wish to save money Bill Reid has been on the Council a long time and I think he knows his way around But a conference at this level could be of benefit for Rivers, Grieves, and Williams.
ReplyDeleteThey don't teach common sense at these workshops. Some of the votes made by Rivers, Greaves and Reid were strickly to support the mayor or recreation's backwardness. No amount of training is going to make them make good sound decisions on behalf of the residents and youth of Plainfield. So if they are going to be that kind of politician, save the money!
ReplyDeleteThe item in point is more of a party and schmoozing than it is a real learning experience, so let's not get too our of joint here. If it were a great learning experience, then, looking at some of our councilors, we've wasted our money in past years.
ReplyDeleteBob Bolmer
Doc I agree hold heartly. I think this was bad politics at it's worst.
ReplyDeleteThe new dems do not want to send their colleagues to educate themselves on being better council memeber's, but I am told they are willing to pay a lawyer whom invesigated the WBLS expenditure's over $20,000.00. go figure.
To 9:46 am and 10:19 am - the council members get $7,000 per year and benefits for being on the council. Remember, it is their choice. So, if they want to improve themselves, they should take it out of the money we give them to be on the council.
ReplyDeleteTo 11:08am - the council spent money on WBLS for two reasons -
1- When asked, the mayor would not answer questions regarding her misuse of funds. If the mayor had spoken to the council, there would not have been an expense
2 - The point isn't $20,000, it is that YOUR money is being spent incorrectly. Now, if you don't care how your money is spent, please send me your information, and I will pass along my $10K plus property tax bill. You can pay it, and I won't care how the mayor spends the money.
So it must be TRUE, the council is taking taxpayer's dollars to pay a lawyer over $20,000.00 to investigate $5,000.00. Wjich council member is getting kick-back from this incompetent lawyer. Jackie drakeford would not do it for 2 reasons she knew it was nonsense, This lawyer took full advantage of the council and it is a DISGRACE.
ReplyDeleteTo anonymous 1:13 whom we all know is a council person, if you have council member's who want to better themselves why not let them?
ReplyDelete2 reasons you are only there to carry out your personal agenda's. and your not there to become a better council person. I am a citizen of Plainfield I vote in every election and when I will never VOTE on a person who thinks they know everything. It is a learning process and if you council people stay stuck here you will never learn anything outside of NJ. This is very SAD very SAD.
9:40 AM, Drakeford did not continue as Independent Investigator because she realized that there was a potential conflict of interest due to the fact that she had been Corporation Counsel in the McWilliams era.
ReplyDeleteThanks Doc for your clarity on the Jackie Drakeford SAGA
ReplyDeleteTo 9:45am - Sorry - 1:13 is not a council person.
ReplyDeleteYou have much more money than I. You can pay for their trip. I pay enough in taxes to this city and which includes money to be on the council.
I'm all for bettering oneself - I do it on my own dime. The council members have an additional 7K they can use.
Remember, they want to do this. So, if I understand you correctly, they only want to better themselves if taxpayers pay for it.
I think it is time to pressure our elected officials to do away with any kind of compensation.
ReplyDeleteSomeone serving should be in a position to give the time, effort and yes, funds, to perform their elected position and serve the citizens.
A council member, commissioner, or any elected official should not need compensation, health care or any other "perk" for serving. They should be independent and have jobs or other sources of income/health care.
If someone serving NEEDS the income/health care -- then I would find their "serving" motivations suspect. On some level they are in it for the benefits/money -- not in it to serve.
For expenses related to the position -- mandatory training, etc., I could see the city paying for that. Networking, non-mandatory learning experiences, etc -- the individual should pay for that, because the person is expanding their personal knowledge and skills. Or, it might make sense to budget money for that kind of training -- like $1,000 per year max a person.
Serving should mean willing sacrifice on the part of the elected official. The person should be motived to not TAKE from the city -- but only to give.
We are experiencing hard times. Every penny not spent is a penny that doesn't come out of your neighbor's pocket.
The constant waste and spending needs to stop. Let's start at the local level.
Olive
Olive. I believe that anyone willing to give time to serve should receive a modest stipend as partial compensation. I agree that the perks such as insurance etc should not be part of the package. Courses and meetings within reason should be provided if it is in the interest of a more knowledgeable organization.
ReplyDeleteI should like to keep in the spotlight that while all expenditures are worthy of scrutiny, that regardless of the pros and cons the $2700 and $20,000 for training and investigation are insignificant rounding errors contrasted with the $1,000,000 + settlement made by the PMUA. Hey team everybody, you are paying the million bucks. You are paying it to the PMUA without benefit of any tax offset. As I understand it there are about 12,000 conscripted subscribers to the PMUA program and this comes to about $100 for everyone that pays a PMUA bill. Beyond this, there was another unadvertised $157,000 settlement. PMUA payroll and associated benefits are increasing next year. Large sums will be required for replacement of heavy equipment. Bond redemption increases each year. The financial outlook is grim.
ReplyDeleteHave great day.