Friday, October 5, 2012

IT IS TRUE THIS IS OZ

I've quickly scanned the agenda for Tuesday night's meeting and found that most of the material has been covered in detail and reports on the agenda setting session

There are two particular resolutions that merit comment; both come from the Corporation Counsel and were introduced at the end of the agenda setting session.

R386–12 amends resolution 127 – 12 the appointment of the Council's special counsel in the $20,000.00 matter than terminated in  the Mayors suit against the Council (city).

R 387–12 is an abomination; It authorizes payment of $22,126.34 to the firm that the Mayor hired for her suit against the Council which was in essence against we taxpayers.

The suit was frivolous, vicious, and absolutely never should have been filed. There is absolutely no reason why the city should reimburse the mayor. What she did with her own doing and not a reaction to a third-party complaint against her.

Is it possible that in a similar manner as the awarding a million dollars severance pay to the PMUA leaders who had resigned; this Resolution represents a secret deal made by the Council so that the Mayor would drop her suit.?

If any member the Council supports this is obvious that their motivation as a Council member is political and not in the interest of the city. We will wait to see their action on Tuesday night and how they can justify this  blackmail.

6 comments:

  1. The City Council really needs to enact legislation that improves its ability to oversee Administration activities before they happen. It should hold all public officials, and itself, accountable for missteps and misdeeds. In the matter of WBLS, as well as a number of other situations, both branches of city government have revealed their deficiencies. It has cost us money, time, and wasted opportunities. Political sniping often passes for resolute action, leaving small-minded and compromised local politicians as the only winners, and that may even be too generous a characterization.

    But WBLS was small potatoes considered in the context of financial misdeeds both the Administration and City Council have engaged in as approving partners. Without excusing the mayor one iota, I've long thought this whole business was nothing but political maneuvering. This should come as fair warning that the political loyalties of many are misplaced, and there are those on both sides of the aisle willing to take us to the cleaners to advance their personal ambitions.

    It is very possible that had the mayor not dropped her lawsuit she would have won the case based on the denial of due process. This may have cost us a good deal more. I'm not happy with the waste, or the original sin, but I am more upset at the lack of accountability displayed by both parties.

    ReplyDelete

  2. Doc,

    Dan Williamson, former Corporation Counsel, apparently approved hiring this lawsuit for the mayor's PERSONAL SUIT against the governing body and residents of Plainfield. The mayor was allowed to have counsel representing her the council investigation--at the end of the investigation, everything was to have been concluded. Afterwards, the mayor filed a personal lawsuit, and she should have paid for that out of her own pocket. Finagling, denial, and obfuscation on the part of Dan Williamson and the administration is how the city paying the mayor's personal bills came out. The council NEVER saw any correspondence regarding paying the mayor's bills, and Williamson NEVER responded to our questions and requests for clarification about who was on the hook for the bills. The council stated several times, in answer to residents' questions, that the mayor was responsible for her own bills. The city administrator said nothing, and corporation counsel DID NOT OFFER A CONTRARY LEGAL OPINION. Why didn't he answer? Why are we just now receiving correspondence dating back to JANUARY 2012 about the mayor's lawsuit? Why was this deliberately HIDDEN from us? Williamson was the appointed by his buddies to become the head of the PMUA, an agency he respects so little that he didn't even bother to pay his own PMUA bill. Why should he? Who cares? If that is the attitude that the PMUA commissioners prefer when appointing an executive director, the people will remain doomed.

    Doc, with all due respect to you, there was no secret deal made. I am very much against paying the mayor's bill, but I know that the result of it will be the lawyers suing the city for payment of the bill, which would drag this entire thing out even more, and at continued cost to the city. If the final council vote is to go ahead and pay the final legal bills, it is not for politically motivated reasons--it is because there is a feeling that we need to stop this hemorrhaging that the mayor's breaking state law caused. The mayor is responsible for this entire debacle, with bills reaching past $80,000. I hope the residents realize that she caused everything to happen. At some point, though, it has got to end.

    To Alan, she would not have won the case--it was ridiculous on the face of it. She withdrew it because she knew it. As far as accountability, and legislation to oversee administration activities, we have that legislation. However, when dealing with corrupt individuals in an administration that willfully obstructs, denies, hides, commits fraud, and lies to the people, it is difficult to enforce that oversight.

    Rebecca

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks for the information, Doc. I said it before and will say it again, "Any council member who votes to pay the our mayor's legal costs should be rode out of town on a rail." This dishonest and unqualified mayor is brings shame on us, so I hope the City Council won't.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rebecca, thank you for your clarification. I was one who frequently asked if WE were paying the Mayors legal expenses and never was told so. In fact as you wrote the Council did imply that the City was not responsible for her legal fees during the hearings. Since this resolution came out of the blue as far as I a citizen am concerned I did question if this was a deal to have her drop the suit.

    The Council must make public all correspondence related to this matter.

    Since the Council never passed a resolution authorizing the payment of a special counsel for the Mayor and is now going to pay that individual the integrity of the Councilors is certanly opoened to question.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This whole business has been a waste of everybody's time and taxpayers' dollars. Political grandstanding
    at its worst--and now the bills come due. The mayor and the council need to take responsibility for this debacle!

    It would be nice if the administration and the Council could get back to doing the city's business. We have so many serious problems that need attention--the PUMA and Muhlenberg, to name just two--and what we have are "leaders" so preoccupied with scoring points in advance of next year's mayoral election that Plainfield's real problems are left on the back burner. For shame!

    ReplyDelete
  6. The mayor could have nipped all this in the bud when Annie McWilliams (then council president) and the governing body requested the bills and documentation of the WBLS event from the corporation counsel and the administration back in 2010 and 2011. The mayor obfuscated, denied, hid, and footdragged about this. The people's investigation into the mayor's willful obstruction uncovered the mayor's unlawful activities regarding this event. It had to be investigated, though--we cannot have a mayor who, along with members of her administration, tries to hide corruption. The Union County prosecutor is now investigating the fraud and other illegal activities that were committed by the Recreation Division in defrauding vendors who wanted to participate in the Independence Day celebration. The mayor has not said a word about it. I have repeatedly demanded all documentation of this fraud, and have not received anything. I hate the idea of the people spending money on another investigation, so thank God the county is taking a look. I am hopeful that the state will also investigate. However, if neither of these two entities (county and state) were to investigate wrongdoing in city hall, it would have to fall on the governing body, just as in the case of the mayor's breaking state law with the WBLS event. Fraud continues to occur in city hall, and the results of the theft in the tax office (in which untold amounts of TAXPAYERS' money were STOLEN) have never been made public. The people of this city need to be apprised of what is going on with THEIR money. I hope residents come before the council on Tuesday to ask questions and demand answers of the administration whose salaries they pay.

    Rebecca

    P.S. I receive a small salary as a councilor --nine thousand dollars a year, so I am beholden to you as
    well.

    ReplyDelete