Politics ought to be the part-time profession of every citizen who would protect the rights and privileges of free people and who would preserve what is good and fruitful in our national heritage. Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890 - 1969), Address recorded for the Republican Lincoln Day dinners, January 28, 1964
In 1995 during Mayor Fury’s administration the PMUA was created because there was indiscriminate dumping of garbage in the city supposedly by outsiders, or residents who did not wish to pay a private contractor.
The promoters for the new Authority were the Director of Public Works, Watson and his Assistant Director Ervin. They and Perry who was also a city employee became the executive staff of the new agency at of course an increased compensation.
The story of their management abuse need not be retold,
Fury had to have the support of the Chair of the local Democrat party but lost it before the next election and thus was a one term Mayor. It is unlikely that he initiated the formation of the OMUA without the tacit approval of the Party Chair.
All the Commissioners appointments were made by the mayor but since almost all had held political; office in the city or had been active in the local party one must entertain the thought that despite denials of intervention in municipal affairs the Chairman had a strong input into the appointees.
The hype to organize the PMUA was that it would be in the best interests of the people. The actuality as history has demonstrated is that it was another cash cow to reward political favors.
This was the same time period when the sale of the Plainfield Area Sewer system for 8.5 million was a gift and the monies received disappeared in “operational” not capital funds.
Harry Truman noted that the “buck” had to stop at the head of the organization; in his case the Federal Government. In the PMUA travesty the perpetual local party boss must be held responsible.
Addendum: When one reads the PMUA Executive Committee minutes it is apparent that both Watson and Ervin said that they wished to leave because of community harassment. The million dollar parachute if they were terminated by the Commissioners without cause. If so they are entitled to no more than what they received.
If any Commissioners voted to pay the additional funds they are guilty of misconduct in office and I doubt if they would be eligible for paid by PMUA insurers defense from suit. Perhaps the sum can ve recovered from those that voted for it.
MUAs are required to have five commissioners. It looks like in the early days one of those positions was held open for the Chairman's brother so he could be slipped in once his City Council term was up.
ReplyDeletePMUA is all about politics and milking the public. When the going gets tough they change the subject to the re-entry program. But through the tears and the sob stories, when it comes to the nuts and bolts, they haven't a leg to stand on, and the milking goes on.
I think it is time for citizens to band together and file a class action suit against the PMUA, the council and the commissioners.
ReplyDeleteThere were several council members who were opposed to setting up the PMUA and put up a fight. After Al McWilliams was elected to the city council he cast the tie-breaking vote to do it. Remember that Mark Fury lost Jerry Green's support during that period. Fury also opposed the community bond referendum for Plainfield's schools--Jerry and Al supported it. Al subsequently became the Democratic Party's mayoral nominee.
ReplyDeleteIt was interesting to read in the just released PMUA Executive Session minutes that Malcomn Dunn's main concern was whether there was insurance protecting him from being sued.
ReplyDeleteNOW WHY WOULD HE BE WORRIED ABOUT THAT?
From the PMUA minutes. . . .
"Commissioner Dunn asked how much insurance the Board has for the decisions it makes?
Mr Perry (PMUA CFO) replied that there's D and O (Directors and Officers) insurance. . . for 10 million dollars.
Commissioner Dunn asked if he (the CFO) thought 10 million was sufficient for protection of the Board"
Ega Brag
Just keep calling your elected officials and state officials. Tell them you are FED up with the theft, corruption, and deception of the PMUA.
ReplyDeleteOPT OUT OF PMUA 908-222-1566 Grand costs $31.50 per month; not only will you save over $15 per month but you'll help to rid the city of the PMUA!
Towards the very end of the last PMUA meeting an elderly lady rose and with touching humility said that she was hard pressed to pay the PMUA bill. She added that she had made application to opt out but the PMUA representative had dissuaded her. He told her the difference was a scant $2.00 per month, therefore not worth the trouble. Also, her future bills would not increase. Both were incorrect. This lady and the thousands of others in this town who are struggling to keep their finances glued together are the people the Commissioners SHOULD BE REPRESENTING, but are not.
ReplyDeleteThe 3 Commissioners who gifted $1,000,000 to the retiring executives have not, nor have any of their predecessors, understood the mission with which they are charged. The parade of Commissioners have never represented the public, acting as stern mentors , vigilantly guarding the public's pocketbook. Rather, they have , and continue to represent the PMUA defending its excesses and misdeeds; on occasion participating in and sponsoring them as is currently the case.
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.
Whether Trenton will take the necessary steps to remedy these egregious offenses remains to be seen. We can hope. In the meantime the most effective weapon available is to put economic pressure on the PMUA by OPTING OUT. Take the time to do it. If dissolution should occur the employees who lose their jobs should recognize that the it would be the Board of commissioners who were responsible and not the protestors who unsuccessfully sought reform. Bill Kruse
Hi, Doc,
ReplyDeleteI 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