MONDAY'S AGENDA

The Thursday night/Friday fronts that passed through here fortunately were neither Derecho nor Doritos but have contributed heavily to what is already the 4^th rainiest June. My nephew yesterday told me that they have had about 9 inches this past week in May’s landing. There is more to come tomorrow night.

 Today however is to be one to enjoy if we don’t get a pm storm. And this is in addition to a weekend supposedly dedicated to fathers. Thus the time is not conducive to blog reading.

The Agenda for Monday night’s meeting differs from that presented at the Agenda Session with the addition of 4 Resolutions from Corporation Counsel plus one congratulatory resolution to be added.

Of the Corporation Counsel’s resolution two are to approve payment of comp. claims and one for additional legal fees. The fourth (4^th) approving a settlement of $90,000.00 for all claims in the matter of “KINGS TEMPLE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. CITY OF PLAINFIELD.

I have not seen the support material, and if the circumstances are not noted, they should be. The court docket number is listed and the info could be OPRAed but the Public should be made aware of what somebody in an official city role did wrong even unintentionally to cost the city such a large amount not including legal fees.

The Resolution approving a MOU between the City and NJDOEP which had merited some discussion Wednesday night including remarks from Citizen Allen Goldstein should not be on the Consent Agenda. Unanswered is the composition of the steering committee; including the expertise of its members, how and by whom they were selected. Also the support documents including those that must be submitted to the State including proposed Brownfields sites and the status of those that have been approved for cleaning.

How the Council can consider this a routine action without having viewed a completed document and understanding of the “steering committee” is questionable.

 There are 69 +1 Resolutions on the agenda plus 3 Ordinances for 2^nd reading and 1 for 1^st. However it is not too bad when there are 15 on the consent agenda (one which should be removed) and 32 relating to renewal or denial of “liquor licenses”. By law each of the liquor licenses must be voted on by itself.

 That leaves 22 which must have a “quick” individual vote but could invoke some discussion.

It is likely that Reid’s time goal will be met.