Council Agenda

Tonight's Council meeting has a total of 37 resolutions of which 29 are on the "consent agenda" which means non controversial and routine. With 8 resolutions and 2 ordinances to be voted upon this should be a short meeting or should it. Of the 8 resolutions on the non-consent agenda only 4 merit some discussion or explanation before a vote.

That brings up why there are on the consent agenda such items as ;

• R;138-09 submission of a Paris Grant Application for $102,000.00. What is a "Paris Grant"? Is it routine to ask for $102K?

• R 160-09 Submission for application for the operation of a 2009 New Jersey Department of Human Services Division of Addiction Services Drug Court Program-$302,272.00- Plainfield Action Services. This is supposedly for the Dudley House for which the city has not received a certificate to operate. The program is a needed one. Can the money will be used for it this budget year or is this application meant to help balance the 2009 budget? Or will the grant be applied to the 2010 FY budget? Too many questions and too large a sum to be routine.

• R 163-09 Authorization for the execution of a Grant Agreement with FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security and the City of Plainfield for $ 478,944.00. Pocket change for what may be explained when the resolution is available for public viewing, but the sum involved takes in out of the realm of the Consent Agenda group.

• R 168-09 Authorization for the execution of a contract agreement with the County of Union Human Services Division Department of Aging for funding under the Safe Housing and Transportation Program for $11,666.00. The amount is not the problem, again the Peons are owed an explanation.

There are a few other resolutions on the Consent Agenda that could stand a public explanation before approval. My concern is that many of the items had little discussion at the agenda setting meeting and with such a large Consent Agenda to be voted, all are exempt from public comments unless removed from the Consent Agenda.

Could the Council in adhering to its new format of one business meeting a month adopting a "rubber stamp" in order to control meeting time? That is a question that each Councilor should ask him/her self. If time spent in conducting Councilmatic duties is onerous perhaps the member should resign and let the City Democrat Committee not the electorate pick the membership.