COUNCIL POTPOURRI

Some general potpourri about Monday's Agenda items:
The following is from an advertisement  found on google:
"As Constables, my partner & I can be hired by attorneys to carry out a number of jobs, mainly skip tracing investigations & process serving. Processes include divorce, probate, subpoenas notice, eviction, complaints, & summons."

That  seems to be as good a description as I can find. A review of various State Statues can be found at this site (http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeozar2/foc/id22.html). Somewhere I came across a statue that mentioned a $50.00 license fee payable to the municipality. I also found and lost a reference that states the Constable is an extension of the Sheriff's office which is a county position.

If the Constable has to pay for a license, that would probably make him an individual entrepreneur. Since Policemen and Firemen have no restrictions on moonlighting when off duty, under those conditions there would be no restrictions against a member of either department also acting as a "Constable" on a fee for service status. However if the Individual is "appointed to serve as Constables for the City of Plainfield"  it becomes a municipal position and is there any restrictions on a person having more than one job in the city and/or county?

By the way, I find no mention of a position called "Constable" in the present City TO, Should it not be created by Ordinance or Resolution which ever is legal before anyone is appointed? Incidentally, the Mayor's letter of recommendation to the Council reads to "Constable Committee". That suggests a lack of knowledge  by whomever drafted the letter.

Since I failed to find a copy of the Mayor's letter to the Council explaining her reason for veto in either last weeks or this weeks public Council package, I have a concern about overriding the veto if I understood the Mayor at last weeks meeting when she said that the vetoed the Ordinance because it contained some illegal phrases. No further clarification is available.

I would hate to have an "illegal Ordinance" on the books. Since all Ordinances are either drawn up in the Corporation Counsel's office or reviewed by him before being presented for action there should be no problems however if there are we are entitled to be so advised.

Regarding the three new items R105,106,107-11, the order of presentation is wrong.107-11 for $58,000.00 being the largest amount should be presented first for action. If any of the larger amounts are approved the other lesser appropriation resolutions are superfluous.

NO HELP FROM TRENTON-AS USUAL

10am: I noted and corrected an "computer transposition" of a sentence from "my letter" to a preceding paragraph that made no sense.

I have contended that we could make at least three much needed changes in the city’s Charter relating to its organizational structure without resorting to a time and expense consuming two years series of Referendum and a Commission.

Therefore in late June in the hopes of convincing the Council that it would be possible I sent this letter to (a) Jeffery Chiesa, the Attorney General, (b)Thomas Neff, the Director of Local Government Services and (c) Richard Constable III, the Commissioner of the Department of Community Affairs.

My letter:

You may be aware that Plainfield has a Special Charter issued in 1969 probably under the Adams Act of 1920. It should therefore be exempt from the provisions of the Faulkner Act of 1950 and as revised in 198.

However following Faulkner Act protocol the Council on July 16 passed an Ordinance calling for a Referendum on the November ballot asking if there should be a Committee formed for a Charter Revision Study. As required by the Faulkner Act there also will be election of five individuals at that time to serve on the study committee if it is so voted.

It is my opinion that with the exception of the following three items Plainfield’s Charter is satisfactory and the necessary changes could be by Ordinance negating the study procedure.

The first change needed is the provision for the Council to have its own legal support. At present the Corporation Counsel is appointed by the Mayor with Council consent and approval. He is to serve both Administration and Council; impossibility when where is a conflict.

The second change is in the makeup of the three Departments. In Mayor Fury’s term (2002) there was a shifting of divisions by Ordinance. Cannot such realignment be done now by the same methodology? Could the number of Departments be altered by Ordinance alone or would that require a Charter change?

Finally, the Municipal Clerk is appointed by the Mayor through the designated appointment process (advice and consent). He serves as Secretary of the Council and under the Faulkner Act in a similar Mayor/Council type government the Council can have the right to select the Clerk. Can such a change be made by Ordinance?

I would be most grateful if you could reply in the coming two weeks to my three questions relating to changing Plainfield’s Charter.

Once again I thank you for your consideration.

On August 8 the Attorney General’s office sent the following:(the letters can be enlarged by clicking on them)

On Sept 5 The Director of Community Affairs wrote.

As of this date I have not heard from Commissioner Constable’s office.

It is obvious under our system of “Government of the People, by the People, for the People” there is no place for a citizen. No one in officialdom is willing to render an opinion but can find a way to “legally” avoid such action.

Note that if you have trouble enlarging the letters; the Attorney General's says "The Attorney General is authorized to offer legal advice only to mdepartments,agencies,and instrumentalities of State government, ------is not empowered to render legal advice to---private citizens or organizations.--"'DOLGS's letter notes that "State Executive Order #6, enacted by Governor Florio on 3/14/90 prevents the Department and any other state agency save for the Attorney General's Office from rendering a legaal opinion.

MONDAY'S AGENDA.

A quick scan of Monday night's agenda shows some deviation from that of the Agenda Setting Session. After I have the opportunity to read the supporting documents I may have some comments other than those I made this past week.

The Resolution appointing two(2) Constables is on the agenda, I hope the Council has been satisfied about the duties and compensation for the office. Monday night there was confusion. If "Constable" functions as a policeman, which is what the name suggests, in any manner, is it appropriate for a fireman to be so appointed. Off hand I can't find any real objection other than they are two different disciplines.

There is a Resolution overriding the Mayor's veto of the Ordinance establishing a Recreation Commission. The Mayor stated Monday night that there were "legal irregularities" in the Ordinance but I have to read her communication of veto to learn the exact problem. It will take 5 votes to override the veto and if form runs true there will be at least 2 "nos".

There are 4 new resolutions on the agenda, each on must receive a majority vote to be included in Monday night's business. Three are variations of of a similar "emergency appropriation"; one is for $33,00.00 to:ensure the successful administration of Purchasing and Recreation functions".

The second is worded similar but is for $43,000.00 and likewise the third is again similar but is for $58,000.00. The difference is the first only supplies operational funds for Recreation, the second in addition funds an employee in the division, and the third adds funding for an employee in the Mayor's office. The Council's action on the Mayor's veto will impact on which if any resolution will be adopted.

10:00AM; the Free Dictionary see link  CLICK   gives some of the duties of a Constable in USA. There has to be a fee for service, thus it is a "paid position".

COUNCIL MEETING #2

Monday night's Council session has been forced to take a subordinate position in today's news.
However although this was a working session not an action taking meeting that which transpired during the course of the meeting had an importance that will continue to impact on the city and its residents.

Union County Board of Elections Administrator ;Dennis Kobitz explanation of the Congressional and State redistricting process based on registered voters and the city ward and districts configurations based on residents-the 1 voter 1 representative format was informative. Because of time restraints, there will be no impact on local elections for the June primary. All 4 Wards must be equal i the number\ of residents with a 10% leeway. That is 5% more or less than the median. The districts will be redrawn after the ward configuration is decided. They are based on voters and any present district that has had less than 250 voters the past two years will be absorbed into other districts. It is the ward vote that counts.

Of the Mayor's recommendations for appointments to authorities, commissions, and committees the recommendation to appoint two "Constables" was deferred for further consideration. There seemed to be confusion as to what the duties of a " Constable" was and who made the appointment. It may be that it belongs to the Sheriff's office and thus the County would make any appointments. There seems not to have been anyone in that role for years.

Without question, the best most important innovation in the format of the Agenda Setting Session
is the inclusion of a public commentary period before the Council starts its consideration of resolutions and ordinances to be included in nest Monday's business agenda.

Since one of the subjects will be action on the Mayor's veto of the Ordinance creating a Recreation Commission there were the usual and some new shills for preserving the position of Recreation Superintendent. Unfortunately one became vituperative when the Council president reminded him that he had exceeded his allotted time and loudly blasted the Council's "New Democrats" for another 3 minutes. During the meeting he had sat next to the Mayor and has been a constant defender of the status quo. This observer has no knowledge of what his relationship is to the Recreation department is but hew as one of the organizers of the Recreation sponsored baseball league that opposed the existing volunteer Queen City Baseball League.

Council President McWilliams tried to explain that no one was being "fired" but that a Commission was being formed and would have to appointed a director who would coordinate all recreation activities from youth athletics to Senior Citizen's programs. Funding for activities has not been reduced in the new budget. What may change is the programs' administrator and the focus away from youth outdoor sports.

Just a thought; would it be practical to adapt the armory into a multipurpose recreational facility that could offer youth groups as well as adult interests meeting space and indoor youth recreational activities including basketball as well perhaps a revival of the old rollerskating rink?

Question, are the school gymnasium available to the Recreation Division for Basketball leagues?

The Mayor explained that she had vetoed the "Commission" Ordinance because there were legal irregularities present. Since Ordinances are either drawn up or reviewed prior to presentation by the Corporation Counsel it would be interesting to learn what language is illegal. There may be a possibility that on this issue one of her usual Council Supporters who has expressed a great deal of concern over the failures of the present setup to adequately provide for the youth will vote to override the veto. 5 votes are needed. at present there are 4 sure.

SPECULATION

Unless this mornings newspapers or input from other blogs provide new information. other than the redistricted state plan,*I and the rest of us will have to wait for tonight's Council meeting for answers to any of our concerns.

I look forward with interest to see who will get the 2nd Ward  Democrat party line now that Tony Rucker has entered the race. There are others who I thought had  a lock on the nomination. I would be "Ivory" sure that it will not be Storch.

On the other hand Green is a consummate politician who knows when it is in his party's best interests to compromise or to back off.  I can not believe that he is supporting the Mayor in her continued  antagonistic relationship with Council. To repeatedly present  Resolutions  that the Council has reject such as the emergency funding meeting (second time called)  or the Constable issue is inflammatory and I am sure that the local party leader does not condone those actions.

I am sure that the  City Administrator disaster caught him by surprise.and that he like many of us id not believe that Taylor would return to an obvious  strained relationship working situation.  One can surmise  that Green may have had  an invisible finger in Taylor's finding a suddenly opened County position.

There will be a reflection in Council votes in that may give  an indication if the Mayor has lost  Green's support.
*added 7:12am