THE MARK SPIVEY PRESS

No matter how hard I try to clean up the paper litter and organize my "den" the results seem to last no longer than to the next time I sit down at the computer, or the mail arrives. It is a given that I have returned to the point where I can find everything I need except that one paper with a short note. The ensuing search compounds the outward chaos, but my organized disorganization now is working well enough that I have a belayed opportunity to write today's blog.

The Sunday "Mark Spivey News", aka Courier, has supplied ne with enough material for several blogs. The problem is if I should focus on the PSS/BOE, the PMUA, or the City's Administration proposals. All three in their unique management methodologies contribute to making Plainfield one of the most expensive cities for property owners while at the same time producing well below the median in value received for the buck.

I have no complaints about the service rendered by PMUA except for the increasing costs. However it seems that the PMUA executives must consider that they are the owners of the golden goose. Not only are the convention expenses of some above reason with indiscriminate regard for control of hotel accommodations an d travel expenses for the upper echelon executives, but questionable need for large numbers to attend the League of Municipalities meeting in AC.

What were the sessions that each attended? How were they related to the functions of PMUA? Will each delegate be willing to give a sworn statement as to his/hers convention related activities? Since the costs come from Plainfiled property owners' payments to PMUA those payers are entitled to know how their money is used.

One can only wonder what is the role of the Commissioners? Do they exert any fiduciary responsibility or take their appointment with its perks as a pay off for being politically accommodating over the years? Do the Commissioners consider the PMUA administration as their employees, or do they act as if their function is to provide a seal of approval?

There is an item in The report on Sunrise House taking over the operation of Dudley House that is an eye opener and needs clarification by the City Administrator. That is the cost for operating Dudley house was $178,000 for FY 2009.

If my recollection is correct, Dasheild repeatedly stated that Dudley House had lost its certificate to function in 2009 because it was deficient in meeting State Standards. City employees listed as part of the Dudley House operation if retained were assigned other positions in the city. Their salaries should have been debited to the department in which they were working. The exception would be any portion of work activity related to Dudley House service activities.

If the $178K is the result of work to bring the facility to NJ Dept. of Health and Human Services standards that should not be under operating costs but under Capital Expenses. Is this another example of the numbers discombobulation at which City Administrators seem to excel.

The third subject BOE/PSS will wait until the next post. Suffice to say, with out Bulldog Marie Pellum's tenacity the PSS and the BOE transgressions would remain hidden. Read her post at http://crescent-times.blogspot.com/ (her old address but stilt works) or access through the 'CLIPS" link.