Sunday, January 31, 2016


In my last blog I questioned the awarding of a contract to develop plans for a parking garage. In this one I shall focus on Ordinances and Resolutions that will be topics of discussion by the public if not the Councilors

There are two Ordinances for second reading and adoption; the first one is the Plainfield Identification card. It should be understood that ant such card has no “legal” standing that would force businesses and banks to accept it, rather it is for municipal purposes. That said  the following seems well put yet accepting one item such as a Driver’s License or a Social Security both which can be easily be a forged item makes the cards value questionable. For both proof of identity and residency at least two items should be required,
 Proof of Identity. In order to establish identity, an applicant shall be required to produce one or more of the following documents: a U.S. or foreign passport, a U.S. driver's license; a U.S. state identification card; a U.S. permanent resident card; a consular identification card; a photo identification card with name, address, date of birth, and expiration date issued by another country to it's citizens or nationals as an alternative to a passport for re- entry to the issuing country; a certified copy of U. S. or foreign birth certificate; a Social Security card; a national identification card with photo, name, address, date of birth, and expiration date; a foreign driver's license; a U.S. or foreign military identification card; a current visa issued by a government agency; a U.S. Individual Taxpayer

However the proof of residency is too loose but will have to do:
Proof of Residency. In order to establish residency, an applicant must present one or more of the following items showing both the applicant's name and residential address located within the City: a utility bill; a local property tax statement or mortgage payment receipt; a bank account statement; proof that the applicant has a minor child currently enrolled in a school located within the city; an employment pay stub; a jury summons or court order issued by a state or federal court; a federal or state income tax or refund statement; an insurance bill (homeowner's renter's, health, life, or automobile insurance); written verification issued by a homeless shelter that receives City funding confirming residency; written verification from a hospital, health clinic or social services agency that receives City funding, confirming residency; and any other document the Administering Department determines is acceptable which shall be set forth in its policies and procedures it promulgates.

The other Ordinance for second reading gives the Mayor the right to appoint the representative to PARSA. In the past the appointment has come from PMUA who has responsibility for our sewer system. Since except for a new Mayor the PMUA Commissioners are appointed by the Mayor this may be a patronage inspired change even if no dollars are involved.

Of the new Ordinances; the one that deals with “pay to play” limits on bids deletes mention of PACS which do not list donors., the two dealing with South Second Street redevelopment should be approved for the agenda. The final Ordinance deals withy sick leave pay. At the rate of 1 sick leave day for 30 days work with a limit of 40 days seems reasonable provided the rules for a sick day are workable and unused ones are not cashed out on termination.

1 comment:

  1. Now that Mayor Mapp has control of the City's reins, it makes financial sense to loosen the already weak local pay-to-play ordinance passed in late 2011. On numerous occasions his campaign committee has taken prohibited contributions from vendors already working under contract with the City or one of its subdivisions (i.e. Supplee Clooney, Lerch Vinci & Higgins, John Wisniewski, John Motta, Palumbo & Renaud, Remington & Vernick, Sysnet Solutions, and Reliance Insurance to name a few). As it is, there is no enforcement, but now there is the hope to increase the contribution limits, and uniquely, to attempt to redefine the State definition of "an interest" in a business from 10% ownership or control to 51%. That latter change itself may be reason enough for the State to invalidate this sham ordinance. Although the ordinance's Whereas clauses pay lip service to Federal Super PACs and "a more fair application of the spirit and intent of the Ordinance", nothing could be further from the truth. The object is purely designed to loosen restrictions and create a situation where candidates and elected officials can take even more money from vendors, either directly or indirectly through loans or contributions from the Mayor's or Assemblyman Green's campaign war chests. If it weren't for the fact that City Council members themselves benefit from this trickle down when they run for office, I would think they would vote down the amendments to these pay-to-play ordinances rather than move them in favor of even more vendor cash.