COUNCIL MEETING #1

It may have been the late hour, 11PM, or the fact that the air conditioning was being super effective at last night's Council meeting, that caused my tonguetiedness during the public comments session. Or it may have been the same pixie which caused this typo-confusion in Mark Spivey's almost daily report on shootings in Plainfield: "Damage to at least three vehicles was visible at the scene Monday, police there said it was caused by the chaos in the immediate aftermath of the shooting.". Or most likely by the complete contempt for the Council and the public evidenced by Administration and its representatives during last night's meeting.

It was significant that Superintendent of Recreation Wynn again stonewalled the Council by "calling out" sick Monday morning and having an excuse for not complying with the Council's request to appear at last night's meeting.

It was again illustrated by City Administrator Bibi Taylor's again objecting to an Ordinance mandating the all bills be submitted to Council for review, not authorization, monthly. It is noteworthy that this Administration as well as previous ones have routinely ignored the Council's request for complete financial updates.

The continual Administration inaction in filling the vacancies in the positions of Director of Fiance and Administrative Services and the CFO is further evidence of this Administration's position itself above and not bound by the City Charter,

The ultimate incomprehensible position occurred with Corporation Counsel Williamson's unique and bizarre opine of a non vacancy in an appointed position.

The Council had just appointed its representative to the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners when Council President McWilliams inquired of the Mayor who had made one of her rare appearances when she was going to appoint her member to the Authority.

The Mayor and her spokesperson the Corporation Counsel contended that there was no vacancy, the position was filled by the holdover,as provided in the Charter. The Charter states that Mayoral appointments made with the consent and approval of the Council shall hold office for the duration of their term or until a successor is appointed.

The intent of the "holdover position" is to maintain continuity and not to contravene the Charter. However Corporation Counsel Williamson maintained that the presence of the "holdover" satisfied the requirements for the office. In addition Williamson stated that this individual's name had been unanimously approved by the Council at the time of his initial appointment in 2006 but when submitted for reappointment the following year that Council had reject the nomination.

In reply to Council's request for information Municipal Clerk Wyatt in her role as "Clerk of the Council" stated that he had been initially appointed to fill a 3 month unexpired term. When the name was nest submitted for a full term the request for approval was withdrawn by Administration and no subsequent nominations had been made.

When Councilman Mapp commented that if the Mayor continued to ignore requirements of the Charter, the Council should seek legal action against her, Councilman Reid protested the spending of city money for lawyers over a non-paying position, Obviously he (Reid) was ignoring that the problem was not whether it was a paying or non paying position but Administration represented by the Mayor disregarding the law as written in the Charter.

Once again this Administration has shown that if not legally it is ethically and morally corrupt. -

This the first commentary about the August 2010 Council meeting. More to follow.