POTPOURRI COUNCIL

Up to now almost all local blog interest has been focused on three items of interest at Monday night's Council meeting:(1) The Plainfield Public Library and budget needs,(2) The CFO position and the Council sponsored resolution that although a majority present voted for it was perhaps defeated due to the absence of two Council members. (3) The "Hispanic Commission" membership.

There was one resolution tabled until the Special meeting on June 28. That was the transfer of unused budgeted line item monies to other line items where the expenditures have exceeded their budget. At the Agenda Setting session the City Administrator was asked if funds could be found to restore those cut from the Library in 2010. Since there was no new information the Council tabled this resolution until the June 28 Special Meeting with the request that the Administrator give a definitive report.

Digressing, at this time I am not sure what are the subjects of the June 28 meeting other than that the PMUA is supposed to make a presentation(?). We will find out when the legal notice is posted.

I would have hoped that a form of the "CFO Resolution" could be reintroduced at the June 28 meeting rather than waiting until the July meeting which occurs after the deadline has expired. But there are some things that are too great an expectation from even this progressive Council and Councilor Storch's announced absence would again doom it to failure.

It is a shame that a minority vote in an organization can defeat important legislation because there are absences of voting members. The majority does not rule. One of the reasons that the Council voted to have only one business meeting a month was to reduce their "burden". Therefore with the present schedule a missed meeting has double the effect that it would have under the old semimonthly routine.

It would seem to me that that each Councilor's fiduciary responsibility to those who elected him/her would give them pause to consider being late or absent except under most unusual circumstances. I am not requesting justification but the attendance record of all Councilors at the beginning of a meeting or reasonably shortly afterwards might be of interest.

A previously tabled resolution awarding Remington & Verrnick $88725.00 for engineering work on the repavement of the short stretch of Watchung Ave from 7th St. to Kensington was passed. Councilor Storch voted no since these contracts are awarded by "the fair and open process" which can neither be fair or open since this method utilizes approved vendors and is not subject to open bidding. Republican 2nd/3rd Ward Council Candidate, Jim Pivnivchny, noted that this firm and its principle contributed substantially to the Mayor's Campaign Fund. (I may have misheard the target of the contribution and will welcome corrections). When queried if these contribution would be in conflict with the awarding the contract, Corporation Counsel Williamson intimated that he was unaware of such contributions but if they had taken placed he saw no conflict with awarding the contract.

During the Public Commentary portion of the meeting Pivnivchny asked what had happened to the $250,000.00 that is supposedly due to the developer for completion of the Senior Center. As I noted in a previous posting, it seems to have vanished into Administration's cyberspace. In reply to Council President McWilliams , Corporation Counsel said he was still in the process of "negotiating" with Dornoch.

Why negotiation, the question was the legitimacy of the charges.

On the subject of resolutions; Councillor Burney emphasized before his no vote on the CFO request to the State was that his objections was not to the resolves although he questioned the timing, but in effect to three of the "Whereas es"

Since the only part of the motion that has any legal implication is the "Be it Resolved etc. one should understand that "Whereas no man has walked on the moon in 2009" could be written into the resolution documentation and have no relationship to the motion. It would not impact on the action. The whereas portion is only an attempt to give justification and does not have to be accurate.