On my third trip around I managed to find a parking space at
the corner and reached the Court House at 6:30 just in time for the Council to
end its Executive Session and open the Agenda Fixing Session which due to
Monday night’s format of a double session would in effect be the decision
meeting. As would be anticipated
anything that would be placed on the Business Meeting agenda would pass by the
same vote. No one would expect a change less than an hour later.
Only in Oz would a deliberative body place a discussion item
on an agenda with over a week’s notification and then because there was no
protagonist present temporarily suspend the meeting to get someone to come a
speak for the item under discussion. I am referring to the proposal to authorize
payroll deductions for subscribers of the Legal Shield program.
Please excused my confusion as to the time sequence but I
believe that before the hiatus at least three of the bleeding hearts Councilors
led by Greaves spoke how important it
was for those poor city employees who
could not afford to have a checking account have the fees for membership
deducted from their paycheck. They could not see why it would cost the city to
do so forgetting that any time involved no matter how small had to be
accomplished by a person(s) on the payroll who could be doing something else.
Councilwoman Williams spoke eloquently about the cons involved pointing out that this was making the city a collector for services by a commercial concern with which the city had no contract. She also questioned if any other provider of such legal insurance services had been contacted.
When Council
reconvened Jeffery Dunn spoke in favor of the program saying that his involvement
was inconsequential noting that there were about 90 employees had signed to
participate.
Other speakers pointed out dangers in setting a precedent of
being a collection agent for a commercial enterprise.
At the end of the discussion the representative for Legal Shield arrived and spoke for at
least 6 minutes on the merits of the
program claiming that it was unique and nobody else provided the same service as did this New York Stock exchange
company. I find that to be a questionable statement.
She handed out a packet for each member of the Council
supporting her statements.
City Administrator Smiley noted that he would try to calculate
what the costs would be. In response to Council President River’s inquiry as to
a Council Resolution authorizing payroll deductions; Corporation Counsel Minchello remarked
that payroll deductions were an administration prerogative and that all the Council
could do was pass a non-binding resolution asking the administration to do so. When
it came to a vote the “party line” was solid with Williams and Storch against.
I will post more later Tuesday.
Dawg is a'commin
Dawg is a'commin
This being the Olympic season, the City Council takes the gold medal for contortions dedicated to advancing the personal business interests of an individual whose appetite for profiteering off the City appears boundless. Halting the public meeting to call Legal Shield reps who were not in attendance, so that they were able to further their money making scheme, was an outrage. Not only does this open the door for anyone peddling a service to demand the same treatment, it shows the ease with which any City employee could walk a few blocks to plop down a $20 bill at 320 Park Ave. and buy it directly.
ReplyDeleteForget the product itself, or the documented contractual falsehoods evident in a previous job-training relationship between the City and this individual, this is really about government turning its employees into a captive audience, saving these promoters countless time and effort to solicit new customers.
It is doubtful the previous Administration vetted this particular product to any great extent, or made comparisons to alternatives, before signing off as Legal Shield's collection agency. The resolution requesting the new administration to reconsider Legal Shield as a direct payroll deduction was specific to the company rather than a request that it investigate if such a service has value to employees, the need for any city involvement, or the marketplace of competition that might provide a better or less costly product.
The only clarity here is that five members of the City Council are greeting these carpetbaggers with open arms, and using their elected office to do so. "No local government officer or employee shall use or attempt to use his official position to secure unwarranted privileges or advantages for himself or others." So says NJ's Local Government Ethics Law. But who exactly is counting?
Surf over to the Plainfield Chamber of Commerce homepage to see for yourself how this full court press is playing out and how unscrupulous the strategy is to tie the City to these efforts.
http://www.plainfieldchamberofcommerce.com/
The ghost of Don Quixote of La Mancha still wanders over the face of the earth.
ReplyDeleteInteresting -- when you click on the Legal Shield link on the Chamber of Commerce home page, the URL has "Jeffry Dunn" as a registered representative.
ReplyDeleteI would assume he is getting commissions on the sales of Legal Shield.
1. Why is this front and center on the Chamber of Commerce website?
2. The BOSS is an incubator, which is all well and good, but why is it front and center on the Chamber website?
The Chamber should be about ALL the businesses in Plainfield. Not just those associated to president Jeffrey Dunn, which put dollars in his pocket.
More appropriate would be to cycle on the front page links to all the different businesses in town.
Why should anyone join the Chamber when it appears to be about forwarding only the interests of the Dunn's?
Having Legal Shield payroll deductions executed by the City is unethical and not the role of city government. If this goes through, citizens should petition the state to come and look at the city's practices.
Just like the PMUA, the city is not acting in the best interests of its citizens, but in a the select 1% of those in power, the Dunn's being part of that select cartel.
Yes, Alan, thank you for pointing out, again, that the Dunns are, in the eyes of big town sharpies, small town hucksters who specialize in leeching on the government teat.
ReplyDeleteBut consider Rob's eternal point: Plainfield is a one party town, that party obviously being the Democrats who stand for pervasive government intervention to protect and promote the disadvantaged. Because we have such a large proportion of residents who are legitimately (and illegitimately) disadvantaged and because we have only small scale private enterprise we are in effect a company town, that company being the government: school district, municipal government, PMUA, publicly funded health care and day care (Muhlenberg easily fitted in here), all manner of county, state and federal entities and projects - the list goes on and on. It's all government and it's pretty much all we have. It's far and away the biggest employer in town but also, and here's where the Dunns come in, by far the biggest customer in town.
A smart businessman surveys the market and targets the best prospects (especially any with which he has a connection) and then forms a network of relationships to strengthen and extend his client base. He markets products and services that the clients need or can be convinced they need. He offers financial services (though not support) to those who need it in order to buy. Have I adequately described the Dunn family approach to business?
Are the Dunn businesses unethical? Well, if they are then so are at least half of the other businesses in America. I know that some Plainfielders like to think of themselves as a population apart from the pervasive perversion of moneymaking but that must have limits. We have to have private enterprise to pay the taxes to keep government afloat. Jeffrey Dunn's sin is that he has so little competition in the young, locally bred, college educated businessman category that he stands out even though he's below average at what he does. Checking out the Chamber website and knowing that he's the president proves that.
Is Legal Shield a ripoff? Probably not if you're an ex-offender, a low-wage worker being hounded by creditors or if you live in a substandard rental and have less than great communication skills. Does it cost the city something to take and keep track of deductions? Sure, but you're totally delusional if you think that more than a small fraction of those employed by the city are working to capacity so who cares about a few hours of someone's time each month?
I don't like the idea of any private enterprise, be it the Dunns or General Dynamics, taking more from the government than they supply in return, but let's evaluate each proposal fairly and in the light of its actual environment, not some utopia of pure intentions where no one has money or legal problems and everyone can write multi-paragraph blog comments.
Well, touche 11:15! But when you "evaluate each proposal fairly" you begin to see a pattern. And it's not always a couple of grand, but sometimes $170,000 or even a cool million. And when you fairly evaluate a proposal, you need to fairly explain your evaluation. You wouldn't have to do that if the pattern wasn't so regular. Or you can say nothing. Just let captive enterprise pass for free enterprise. Sort of like the new serfdom.
ReplyDeleteYes it is a Government town that closes when there is a snow fall while McDonald's manages to stay open !
ReplyDelete