My intention to post this am about the Shot-Spotter program has fallen victim to unanticipated complications but will be up later on Thursday. Meanwhile, Mark Spivey's report in the Courier and Jeremy Walsh's in the Ledger are an in depth report of the action at Council's meeting.
I want to expand on my remarks about the Council's actions regarding the failure to override the Mayor.s veto. First I would like to quote a line from Council President McWilliams's blog and repeated at the Council meeting. It represents the crux of the situation, and why the three Council members 's action was not in our interests.
"This is the bottom line: a vote against these ordinances is a vote against transparency and fiscal oversight.No resident will be harmed if these ordinances are approved. In fact, taxpayers will benefit tremendously.
I am also reprinting a letter from another blog which refutes one of Administration's prime arguments
"Vendors who deal with municipal government are well aware of the time it takes to first obtain a purchase order and then, after delivery of goods or services, obtain a final approval and then payment. They are also aware that having a governing body review bills before payment is not an uncommon practice, and is part of doing business with local government. Plainfield's municipal finances need this type of oversight."
No one should have been surprised at Councilor Reid's vote on both resolutions and Councilwoman Carter's one was initially against the Ordinance lowering the "no bid level".
What needs better explanation are the votes of the two who changed from approval to defeat both Ordinances.
Councilman Burney gave an explanation which may have been rational in his own mind but seems asinine to others. Why, because one does not think an attempt to correct a problem is not strong enough would one turn down a small gain in the hopes that a more comprehensive one which can not be practical and would be sure of not being enacted? Perhaps Councilor will post on his blog why he did reject a workable Ordinance in favor of pie in the sky.
Councilor Rivers, representing the 4th Ward has yet to expound on why she considered on Monday September 13, 2010 two Ordinances that she had approved of less than one week before to not merit enactment. If she is going to be a proper representative of all the people in Plainfield she must have a reasonable cause at least in her own mind to change her position. We are owed an explanation. To not do so might leave her motives open to questioning.
Sad to say there is a time when party politics do not have a place in community affairs. This is especially important when there are questions of fiscal mismanagement or competency in Plainfield. This is a problem that the Mayor has shown no inclination to correct by appointing a Director of Administration and Finance or a CFO. Indeed her acting appointments are time wise in violation of the City Charter and perhaps State regulations.
If the Acting (or Assistant?) Comptroller as one documents title indicates is also the Acting CFO is in not a potential conflict of interests. It is the equivalent of having the fox guard the hen house.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I heard McWwillaims had a major melt down. She apparently shut down Carter and the Mayor? She did not let discussion do on, and raised her voice at everyone in the administration and several council members?
ReplyDeleteIs this true? No blogger is talking abou this.
Doc, Burney will write something in his blog ( and I bet he will turn off the comments portion again when he does just like he did during the election )but it will not explain it. It will be some drawn out assassination upon common sense, but it will not explain it.
ReplyDeleteMcWilliams said it and you quoted it," fiscal transparency". The worst part is the MORONS in this city who see and hear that and somehow find people like you, Dan, Bernice, Storch, Mapp, McWilliams and all of us who openly supporting fiscal restraint and accountability as the bad guys. They have been so blinded by party loyalty or they are living off the NJ gravy train that they see fiscal transparency as an attack on their ideology.
The SRB/JG GANG OF 4 stood up for smoke and mirrors and fiscal trickery. Storch, Mapp and McWilliams stood up for the people.
It will be such a pleasure once Burney is out of office and this charade stops.
11:15 pm: You are nuts if you think Annie McWilliams had any kind of a "melt down". She knows her role as Chair of a meeting and allows everyone, Council members and Administration especially the Mayor. time to express their opinions. However when the Mayor persisted in trying to speak after discussion was closed and the vote called The Chair acted according to Parliamentary rules and in effect told her politely that she was out of order. The same with Linda Carter who was having further thoughts. The very same rule applies to the public where a speaker after finishing his/hers comments does not have the right to reply to statements made by Administration or Councilors.
ReplyDeleteWhy is that that when someone disagrees with you, they are playing party politics.
ReplyDeleteBut when they agree with you, then they are looking out for the city.
Anon 3:15pm, unfortunately your comment was accidentally deleted instead of posted. However, you are relying on a third person report which is hearsay and can be distorted. You facts are without foundation since you were not there and can reflect your informer's opinions. Come to the meetings and you will have time to raise your concerns or objections although it might be at midnight.
ReplyDeleteBurney's first commentator got it right. Damm with substance. Damm with the facts. Damm with Plainfield's needs.
ReplyDeleteThe New Dems wanted to spoil the show for the Mayor, and "facts" and "substance" got in the way of thier parade and mob lynching.
No one cares about the actual ordinance. No one cares that the ordinances will actually do nothing. Everyone knows that.
You did a good job of parroting McWilliams - without any reservation. You played your part well.