I would liked to have posted a report on the Council meeting scheduled for 7PM Monday night, however for me it was the meeting that wasn't.
It may and probably did take place. When I will like the rest of the public have to find out in the other bloggers' posts and the Courier. Of the three agenda items of which I was aware the first was the annual renewal of liquor licences which could be routine if the establishments have fulfilled all their state registration forms and paid their taxes. There are usually a few that are incomplete but are given temporary permits. Every one has to be voted as a single item.
The second item on the agenda was the PMUA presentation/discussion which could be rote or prolonged and the third which I was most interested was the delayed to this meeting administration request for transfer of unused line items to unmet obligations.
The question the Council had asked that if Administration in June could find unspent funds to meet deficits in other line item budgeted expenditures could they possibly find money to restore the Library cuts? Once again the absence of a CFO and Director of Finances clouds this issue.
Unfortunately the Mayor had at the last moment scheduled a rally and a protest march against Plainfields outburst of gun violence and gang activity to start 30 minutes before the Council meeting. I must admit that the organizers of this rally did a great job' When I arrived before 7PM there were no parking spaces in the City hall lot aon 6th St. or Watchung Ave. There were cars parked in the empty lot on the corner. There were also two Senior Citizen's buses parked on 6th St.
By 7:30 the speeches in the City Hall Library were still going strong with no signs of abatement, so I left.
Today was also the first day of the oft rescheduled Council retreat with the second session to be Wednesday afternoon. According to the NJ Open Public Meeting Laws or Sunshine Laws any meeting of the governing body, or its committees attended by an effective majority of that body must be open to the public. There are specific exceptions such as discussions on pending legal matters, negotiations, personnel etc.
I understand that at the insistence of Corporationj Counsel that because today's focus was going to be on staffing matters and layoffs of specific individuals as effecting the 2011 budget process it had to be a closed meeting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Regarding the Open Meeting law, only that portion of the meeting that deals with specific personnel issues can be closed to the public. Discussions pertaining to general staffing levels and the strategies to be employed vis-a-vis the size and scope of city government should see the light of day.
ReplyDeleteIt was clear from the Mayor's printed agenda (which included items such as what is considered acceptable and non acceptable behavior, and setting long-term goals) that specific employee issues were not the sole subject of the meeting. In fact, from all appearances the discussion would be wide-ranging, with a focus on Council-Administration relations, factions within the Council, and the entire dynamic of city governance and setting expectations. Exactly what the sun is intended to shine on.
Although airing one's dirty laundry is never pleasant, and often words and opinions are expressed that are less than complimentary, our city government is not a private club.
Confidentiality ought to be respected where it is clearly demarcated. But if that were the case, instead of being touted as a Council-Mayor retreat, the meeting should have been billed as a closed meeting to discuss specific personnel issues. A Council resolution stating as such would be required too, I believe. Contrary to Counselor Williamson's, my opinion is that barring the public, at least for the greater portion of the meeting, was a violation of the Open Meeting law. I've noted this in an email to my Council representatives, and it should be recognized that Adrian Mapp did speak out against the closure.
Around here things get done in one of two ways: Eventually, after an era of delay, or out of the blue. If it's a matter of which police captains will be demoted, fine, that's personal and off limits. We understand. But if the city
is to adopt a strategy of demoting captains as part and parcel of efforts to balance the budget, we should get to hear the discussion and explanations. We should get to see how it's done. We paid the admission price whether it's a marathon or a sprint, done by the light of day or the dark of night, and regardless of outcome. There shouldn't be any gaming of the difference between what is confidential and what one would like to say in confidence. Not from public officials who should be upfront with their constituents.