Sunday, January 13, 2013

LOCAL POTPOURRI



On page 2 of Sunday’s Courier there is a small perhaps 6 inch column regarding the arrest in South Plainfield of a 18 year old North Plainfield resident as the shooter of a 5year old Plainfield boy. Either the news was too insignificant for the Courier to merit the Page One report of the crime; or the present incarnation of the Courier has no room for non sensational news.

Three Plainfields have a common link in a crime which proves that these communities a socially one.

As I write this I have not seen the Ledger. The TV media did feature on the evening news the story of the arrest.  Missing hgowever is any accounting of how the “perp” was identified and located. This had to be through cooperation by some public individual(s) with the police.

Tomorrow night will be the first Council Agenda Fixxing meeting in the City Court Room. I  expect that there will be addition items for discussion then those on the brief published agenda. Since nothing can be voted on at this working session the rules for new items do not hold.

One resolution for inclusion that is missing from Friday’s posted agenda concerns the Block Grant for some $2,250,000.00+ for various municipal services and projects which are itemized. The may be a clerical error resulting in two Neighborhood Health Services grants of $16,589.00 with similar descriptions.

Speaking of rules; One subject for approval will be the Council rules for 2013. Among this years which included several changes is the subject of the consent Agenda. Although spelled out is how a Councilor can remove a resolution from the Consent agenda; missing is any mention of public action. That should also be defined in the approved rules.

12.1 of the rules “Presence Required’ reads “No Council member’s vote shall be recorded unless present in the chamber”. If that has been the rule then all the “speaker phone” votes in 2012 have been illegal and any action taken may be subject to legal action.

 

4 comments:

  1. Hi, Doc,

    The phrase "present in the chamber" would include councilors who participate via telephone. This has come up in past years.

    Rebecca

    ReplyDelete
  2. Rebecca; I am a "Philadelphia" lawyer!and take things literally. If it doesn't say so it "ain't". I would not rely on an opinion from any former Corporation Counselor and although you have accepted it as fact it should be so stated or it may come back to bite the city.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You are right, Doc--I will get it clarified tomorrow night. God forbid that we have to invalidate every vote that came about via telephone participation. Heh.

    Rebecca

    ReplyDelete
  4. The public should hire the American Civil Liberties Union to defend it from all the lawyers the city puts in office. The quality of legal advice Plainfield government relies upon is horrible.

    ReplyDelete