Thursday, August 13, 2015

ABOUT THOSE REJECTIONS




Friday evening the Agenda for next Monday’s Council meeting will be made available for the public. The Councilors will have their packet to “study” over the weekend for the meeting. Missing will be the Resolution funding the Trainee 911 workers.

Also missing will be the Ordinances dealing with the South Ave. Redevelopment Project and the 25 pages of information which was in the Agenda Setting Session Budget.

Perhaps the “uninformed” Councilors will have read the PILOT agreement by now and by a 2/3 vote reintroduce the two Ordinances as new and vote on them Monday night. After all the only honest objection the negativist could have is the terms of the PILOT, not the concept has been new since they have already approved the need for redevelopment, had have an opportunity to learn about it at a public meeting; and should know that the Planning Board at present has under consideration for approval the developers plans.

The “Motor Manager Ordinances (2)” must be on the agenda since it was subject of a legal ad. The Councilors had announced that they will vote to table it.

Although the support material was not in this month’s packet by virtue of documentation now on the city site it had been available in February when the plan was previously introduced.

If although it does not seem possible as Public Safety Director Reiley wrote; 40% of a Police Lieutenant and 35% of a Fire Lieutenant daily time is spent on motor vehicle management then this plan makes sense since that is a waste of the services of a needed professional officer. In both cases this is not part of their job description.

The city has a roster OF 327 vehicles of various types including 232 in the Police division; plus 10 military Humvees. The centralization of their maintenance and use makes economic sense. However if it means an increase in the number of employees it does not fly. More info is needed.

Just as in the rejection of the resolution on the funding of 911 trainees, the Councilors objections to the Motor Manager seemed to have been based not on the merits of the proposal but rather on job patronage; “my guys not yours”.

There are probationary operators on the 911 board who after a year will must be considered for a full time position after passing a civil service exam. As local citizens they would have priority over outsider who may have scored way better on the exam and would be better qualified. The impression was that those individuals felt that their jobs were in jeopardy if they were replaced by new trainees.

Not taken into consideration was that at present there are two Police officers assigned to 911 duty who could be on the street.

Council should revisit all three that they rejected, and make an honest decision based on our city’s needs not partyism. Good redevelopment is a must; competent 911 operators could be the difference between life and death.

1 comment:

  1. Thank you, Doc. You are on the money with these comments. Perhaps some of the City Council members are aware that the current Democratic City Committee will not put the up for re-election on the Regular Democratic :Line and they are angry. I am one of the elected members to the City Committee and would like to see all Council members do what's best for Plainfield and not for their petty needs. Soon, I hope, we will be rid of Council members who care more about their needs than those of the city.

    ReplyDelete