This part of a comment by Bill Kruse enacted a response from Councilor Rebecca Williams : "Our City Council is so intimidated by the PMUA, and whomever is behind them, that the Council was afraid to put the matter of the 1,000,000 settlement in the agenda at the joint meeting of Council and PMUA Commissioners. The "settlement' issue overshadowing all other matters. "
Councilor Williams response follows: Hi, Doc,
I would like to respond to Mr. Kruse regarding the joint meeting that took place last month between the council and the PMUA commissioners. I actually did bring up the question of the settlement, which Mr. Sanders questioned, since he said he did not see the topic on the agenda--I maintained that anything having to do with ratepayers came in under the agenda, i.e., the proposed settlement. Mr. Toliver and Mr. Sanders inadequately answered my questions--it was clear to me that they had barely a clue about what they were saying--their respective comments were contradictory and quite evasive. I was not on the council when Mr. Toliver was appointed, and I voted against Mr. Sanders and Mr. Dunn--neither candidate impressed me as wanting to reform the PMUA. Now, in apparently going outside the arbitration process (certainly unethically and possibly illegally), my first impressions have been confirmed. I will be blogging about this topic before the end of the week, my schedule permitting. In the meantime, I encourage residents (in addition to signing the petition) to call the office of the governor, and to write a letter as well--that is what I think needs to be done, at this point. As much as I can do from my seat as a councilor (including asking the governor's office to review and intervene with my own correspondence), I am committed to doing.
Rebecca
The Councilor is 100% correct in that she brought up the subject of the settlement which most of us agree was egregious. I hope she will keep us informed through her own blog as to the status of her request to the Governor's office.
From reading the minutes of the PMUA executive session, one can come to a conclusion that Commissioner Dunn's question about D &O Insurance protection indicated that he was considering an action that could be if not illegal the source of a suit.
The question is entitlement since the two beneficiaries were not terminated by the Commissioners so "cause" can not be a question. Instead they voluntarily submitted their resignation which would negate any termination for cause agreement. If the Commissioners retroactively agreed to terminate them, or if the Commissioners who voted out of the goodness of their heart to allocate the funds disregarding circumstances; then there is grounds for suit.
If under either circumstances there is a question of even if they are eligible for a D&O defense which may be questionable, who will pay he costs. Can any cost to the PMUA and therefore the City be recouped from the individuals if it is found that they violated their fiduciary responsibility?
Any opinion from legal authorities or Philadelphia lawyers will be welcomed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If the PMUA is dissolved or absorbed what do you propose happens to the employees that A. do not have criminal backrounds or records, b. truly work hard for the company that allows them to pay their bills and are not in favor of the antics of the higher ups? Closing this company will put more people OUT OF WORK but yet you complain about the Mayor not doing anything about employment. SMH.
ReplyDeleteIf the mayor wants to help preserve the PMUA she has a wonderful opportunity. Demand Toliver's, Dunn's and Sander's resignations and appoint 4 new Commissioners.I would suggest a lineup as follows:someone with a strong financial background, an attorney, a heavy construction contractor or engineer, and an executive from some major business. None of these can have had any relatives employed in, or significant dealings in the past, with Plainfield Municipal government. All shall hold at least a Bachelor's degree,and all should be willing to serve without compensation. Do this and the "antics of the higher ups" who are jeopardizing hard working people's jobs, as you say, will be corrected. Also, please remember that 50,000 people are being hurt by the antics of the higher ups, not just the employees. Bill Kruse
ReplyDeleteAt SMH - If the PMUA were absorbed approx 1/2 of the jobs would be brought under the city's rolls. I would argue that about 30-40% of the jobs the PMUA has created are not needed. The PMUA doesn't need 4 sales representatives. They don't need 10 supervisors to ride behind the garbage trucks. The commissioners should look at the efficiency of both private haulers and other MUA-like entities. New Brunswick, Summit, and Elizabeth are great starts. They have about one to two thirds less staff than the PMUA with more territory to cover.
ReplyDeleteDon't forget that approx. 49,850 people are struggling because the PMUA wastes money like water flowing through the sewer system.
Lastly, this isn't about people who have or don't have criminal backgrounds. If people aren't efficient they should find another line of work.