I must admit I was wrong the other day when I wrote that the NYC "Car Bomber" was not connected to Al Quaida but just a local jerk, and that Monday's Special BOE meeting was to go out in glory and fire Gallon.
Like my lottery tickets I was only 5 numbers from being a winner. The bungling bomber seems to be connected with the Pakistani Taliban, and the BOE did devote its meeting to Dr. Gallon but only to reprimand him.
However our flamboyant Superintendent did once more make the TV news. At least one station "Fox" featured him on Wednesday's night news. Yes, once more the world is reminded that Plainfield is an attractive community for developers. Oh yes there is a story in the online edition of the Courier, I have yet to read the print copy.
But, today's blog's initial concerns will be on things that did not happen rather than which took place. We will get to the more of latter as space permits.
Dr.Gallon's presence was not "ballsy" as expressed by another blogger. No it was not a chimera at the head table but a man expressing a degree of savoir faire that few if any of us could pull off. He had not been removed from his office by the BOE. His job required his presence, and he complied. Despite the incidents of the morning our legal system assumes that one is innocent until convicted and should be so honored.
The other non-event was at the Council meeting. Despite the request last month when 138-10 was tabled to have a discussion with Administration regarding the $250+K bill for the Senior Center the only reference was in the agenda for the executive committee meeting which preceded the Agenda Setting Session. The agenda for that meeting lists under "Contract Negotiations' : Senior Citizens Facility".
I know that at my age the memory is supposed to be unreliable, and I periodically throw out piles of useless papers including those pertaining to the Monarch request for a tax abatement. Included in those papers were copies of the City's Agreement with the Union County Improvement Authority (UCIA) and the contract between UCIA and Dornoch cosigned by the city. Among the provisions of that contract was Dornoch (or whatever shell company was involved) obligation to provide the city as a condo, with a Senior Citizen:s Center. The implication was this was to be a completed facility not empty space like the city's condo in the old Tepper Building. This was he deal sold to the public and I believe Council.
After the City had its grand temporary opening in May 2009, the city then decided to use some of the space for the Police Department. Any alterations for that purpose would have had to be financed through a Council resolution, which I do not remember.
AS to available funds, the mentioned authorized bond issue of $4,000,000.00 for the construction of a Senior Citizen Center refereed to a specific project that was never started. I doubt if those funds are legally available without an amending resolution.
The question thus remains, Is the $250K+ a legitimate city debt? If so who authorized it? The Council in April seemed unaware. Or is the issue another shenanigan which will b e permitted to drift into obscurity?
As to happenings, remember that this was the Agenda Setting Session, for the business meeting Monday May 10. No binding action is taken at this meeting. The Council approved a resolution to authorize approval of the corrective action plan for the FY2009 Audit recommendations and its submission to the Division of Local Government Services. There were some 27 recommendations and as Councilor Reid pointed out many were repetitive from previous years. He questioned if they were due to the lack of a CFO. Administration was queried as to the progress of the search.
Also to be voted next Monday is an resolution to award American Data Process Inc. a contract to provide an automated time management,attendance, and payroll services which would replace the antiquated inefficient paper system in use. among the systems requirements were time clocks using a card swipe. When question why a more fraud proof bio-metrical fingerprint identity system was not being procured, the Council was in formed that this was to prevent anticipated objections from a strong city union. It is unconscionable that any group of employees should hold the city hostage.
It was mentioned that after the system was up and running then consideration would be given to purchase low grade cameras to monitor the 18? time clocks.
More to come
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I hope the Council gets to the bottom of this rip-off of the tax payers. We certainly didn't get our million dollars worth here.
ReplyDeleteI also hope the time system for city employees works. Time clocks and cards is so yesterday. Give each employ an number, perhaps the last four digits of their social, and use a key pad to log them on and off. This is recorded at a central facility. Their time information can be printed at any time for their supervisor to approve and then they get paid. Let's do this wisely and inexpensively as possible.