Saturday, April 11, 2015


Monday night’s Council meeting may be long and contentious as well as perhaps multiple self-aggrandizement speeches by some of the Councilors.

There will be a break for an Executive Meeting to discuss “potential litigation” before the start of consideration of Ordinances for Second Reading.

I have expressed concern about what I understood last Monday would be changes in the Ordinance when voted on; however as  printed it is the same as the original with the fine limits for violations by employers being defined  only as  “up to $2000.00 per day.  That gives a lot of leeway and could be anywhere from 1cent to that 2K number. I cannot determine who assesses the fines   Perhaps Storch’s suggestion of $750.00 will be in place through a new resolution yet to be introduced and not listed.

Likewise there is no number of the minimum number of employees per employer who must be covered. The number 10 was mentioned previously, and Storch did suggest making the threshold as 5 employees. That too may be accomplished by resolution.

The Ordinance does read:” (4) "Employee" is as defined in N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a1(h) who works in Plainfield for at least 80 hours in a year except that "Employee" for purposes of this Ordinance does not include any person employed by any governmental entity or instrumentality including any New Jersey school district or Board of Education or (b) any person who is a member of a construction union and is covered by a collective bargaining agreement negotiated by that union.

If so as the Ordinance is written if a person has even one part time employee who works just a little over an hour and half a week must provide that person with sick day’s pay.

Someone asked if it covered developers and I answered that I understood it was only applicable to “employers” who lived or had their business in Plainfield.  However according to this N.S.J.A. 34:11 anyone who has a worker in this city for more than 80 hours/year is obligated under the Ordinance.   I can see a fertile field for the legal profession if every municipality has its own Ordinance. It would be nice to know what is the basis of the suits in Trenton and if this document has the same problem. There will be mention of our legal fees for other services up for vote this week.  

Again, his should be best addressed by State Law.

I find the membership of the proposed CBAC intriguing due to the inclusion of Sharon and also former Councilor Bill Reid. Their own agendas expressed when elected officials can interfere with a role as a citizen. The other member are: Doloris Dameron, Tom Kaercher, Jan Massey and Richard Steward.

This is the time when the Council may pay attention to CHAC’s recommendations since its political leanings matches the Council’s majority.


  1. Sharon and Bill--perfect together! If those meetings are public, let's see the schedule so we can watch the show and giggle.

    1. By law these meetings must be public.