Saturday, April 4, 2015

FIRST ON AGENDA.




I was intending to comment on Monday’s agenda but even on the expanded on line agenda there is almost no information. Undoubtedly due to the holidays weekend. We must thank AJ for as much as he was able to supply. If and when I have information on Resolution that I have questions I will post.

Fortunately this is not the meeting where the Council casts a vote.

One item of discussion is the Council’s appointment of legal Counsel to investigate the North Ave fiasco. This should be done and must be; however will this Council select and a truly “Independent Counsel”? Probably not in view of the Council’s President’s open antagonism to anything remotely connected with the Mayor.

Since is seems that the anticipated Green pre-election campaign has already started and River’s has inappropriately entered it via the news media the possibility of any Council agenda being free of political bias is very remote.

Tonight is the Final Four.

8 comments:

  1. 1:11 pm, your comment is worthy of posting; however since you refer to your personal conversations I do not feel that it should be posted anonymously .

    ReplyDelete
  2. It would be such a nice thing to think Jerry's Kids would be able to do something in the interests of the citizens of the city by having a truly independent counsel selected...but the best interests of the citizens are not in THEIR best interests.. this witch hunt will be a biased political smear attempt..not finding out the details and timeline of events. In other words..spending our money to make them look good, not find out information.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If we can get rid of the assemblyman and chair, then maybe we'll make some progress. Jerry's kids might do the right and honest thing if we cut off the head that tells them what to do. We'll see if the voters exercise their right and are tired of the BS.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks Doc. anytime anyone disagrees with the mayor and his flunkies on the council I have to say they are puppets of Green.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think you've been paying attention. What you said applys to the last administration, but currently, Green's flunkies on the City Council are trying to harm the current mayor and the city. Anyone home?

      Delete
  5. The "irregularities" associated with the Demolition Project are so conspicuous that it warrants a professional investigation. The logical selection is the Union County Prosecutor who has authority, and subpoena powers, not available to a private
    attorney. There would be no cost to the City. Perhaps more importantly, it would eliminate the political component that is raging before the investigation even commences. In the alternative, to avoid the grim prospects to the parties that might devolve from an investigation, to eliminate, and reduce the prospective cost to the City, with regard to legal fees, the unsettled matter of payment for the work performed, and the cost of the work to complete the project, a suggested solution is as follows:
    1. Have B&B Demolition, who performed 1 days work, submit a bill based on a time and materials basis for the work performed. Have the bill reviewed by a competent engineer familiar with construction costs. Pay B&B for the final approved amount. B&B would of course provide a release to the City in exchange for payment.
    2. B & B 's insurance Carrier would be notified of the damage which B&B caused during the performance of the work. The City would receive in writing an acknowledgement from the Insurance company that the claim had been filed and that the named insurance company had provided General Liabliity Coverage regarding B & B's operations at the North Avenue site. .
    3. In order to accomplish the above it would be necessary to first obtain Yates acknowledgment that Yates had, or would, notify Yates insurance Carrier of any claims that might arise from Yates role as General Contractor. Yates would receive the sum of $1.00 for work performed and release the City from any and all future claims, and any obligations the City may have had under the Letter to Proceed which Yates received from the Department of Public Works.
    4. The City would contract the completion of the work either through a bona fide bidding process with an appropriate formal contract, or, if it felt sufficiently confident complete the work with its own forces. The latter could be risky since the demolition is incomplete. Portions of the original structure remain. They are contiguous to existing structures and therefore must be demolished by someone having the expertise to perform this more delicate work. .
    5. Mr. Watson resign from his position as Director of Public Works.
    6. Mr. Robinson resign from his position on the PMUA.
    It seems to me that all parties, faced with the rather grim prospects of what an investigation might reveal would leap at the opportunity. On the other hand, if the parties have acted in good faith, and are confident that their are no skeletons in the closet, they can decline these suggestions and look forward to complete exoneration as a conclusion to any investigation. Bill Kruse.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Has the City notified the "General Contractor", Yates, in writing, that his operations caused damage to adjacent structures?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Be there tonight and asked that question. It is bwyond my knowledge.

      Delete