BUDGET AND THE CITY

Monday night’s final council business meeting of the year was abbreviated in scope and time. Only a minimum quorum was present and marked the final meeting for Council President Gibson and Councilman Davis. Unfortunately they were not able to go out with a bang instead this session was an anticlimax whimper.

After the session was adjourned, Marc Dashield, the City Administrator made some remarks about this year’s budget process, the present status, and prognosis. He also took great lengths to comment on the infamous CBAC report and its hypercritical approach.

He strongly emphasized that many of the figures criticized by the committee were erroneous due to misinterpretation or misunderstanding the numbers. He also expressed his opinion that the CBAC did not understand the budget process and that the focus of the report was not the intent desired in the establishment of the committee.

There can be no denial that the CBAC never received a clear charge as to its duties and goals. They should not be condemned for the broad philosophical report they produced.

There can be little argument that CBAC’s indoctrination was anything but professional, lucid, or adequate. Council had already adopted for introduction a budget that contained grievous errors which may ultimately prove to be very detrimental to the city. According to listeners, the presentations were sloppy and amateurish, with often a lack of supportable data. The professional oversight was grossly incompetent. The few presentations the Financial Director made where sloppy at best and might not have passed a high school test standard.

The problem with Plainfield’s finances and budgets starts and ends with the Mayor’s Office. A compliant Council that approved without questioning any errors must share responsibility. The CBAC’s critical report should be read and absorbed at full value disregarding any salary misunderstanding that resulted from the material that the committee had access.

City Administrative officers and Department Heads are appointed by the Mayor and approved by the Council. 6 or 7 chief financial officers during a 3 year term indicate that the selection process has been faulty. What due diligence was done on any of those who have filled the post? Who vetted Mr. Peck? What was his prior relationship with anyone with political influence in the state? How did he become involved with the PMUA, what was his qualifications for his role there? Peck did not come out of the woodwork; a full accounting is owed to the public.

There are other financial questions about Peck. I understood though not from an official source that he will be paid for the rest of the year. Was he fired for cause? Doesn't that free the city from any further obligation? And is not the $12,000.00 relocation fund recapturable if it was not used for that purpose? Or was there another incident of negligent handling of public funds?

Finally, if Mr. Peck has illegally used a city vehicle and if such vehicle is missing are there not ground for criminal action? I would even suggest that in the light of recent circumstances an immediately in depth city wide fiscal audit is required.

For all of this, the Mayor's office and the city administration owe the public an open and complete explanation.

9:00 am,12/3/08: The above was posted before today's Courier arrived. The story about Peck contains some interesting quotes; "not a result of criminal activity or litigation", one of the issues was that he comes from out of state, in Ohio and Jersey's a different world---the way we do things and the way the rest of the world does things is quite different", "Lets just say that Mr. Peck didn't fully understand or implement the vision, the mission of the city".

I have no further comment I think I already posed the appropriate questions that should be answered. Each of us can interpreted the quote printed remarks.