TOO MUCH TOO LITTLE SPACE

My excuse for not reporting on the Council meeting has some validity in that I was tired when I returned home Monday night and Tuesday morning was occupied by prior commitments.

I had no guilty feelings for being delinquent on a self-imposed task which I enjoy the opportunity to “let off steam”. In fact I thought that last night’s meeting had so little controversial matter that the other bloggers would be able to cover it in one short posting.

From what has or has not been posted to this time (2:15pm) as I am writing this; it appears that they too were discombobulated by the going ons.

I thought that the presentation by Habitat for Humanity would be favorably received and it was as it should be. The fact that closing the street will only affect three houses cannot be glossed over but no one on this Council thought to question if those individuals were aware of the project, and had no major objections.  What accommodations are to be made to lessen their inconvenience?

As expected no objections were made to the three “Fiestas” by any of the Councilors except by Councilor Williams who questioned the negative impact on the merchants. She was the only one who raised questions about the composition of the “parade”.  

Regarding that “parade” I am willing to bet “dollars to donuts” that prior to Monday night’s meeting none if any were aware that a parade was included. I would happy to apologize to any or all on receipt of an non-prevaricated statement to the contrary.

These ‘Fiestas” seem to be very popular. It is too bad that they are commercial private moneymaking exercises.  Once again I would like to repeat my suggestion that starting in 2015 they should be Community sponsored including recognizing the heritages of all other ethnic groups in this city.

This would be truly a “go getter” for Plainfield and perhaps become an attraction to bring in the new blood that will rejuvenate this city.

Such a project should be a joint undertaking of Economic Development and Recreation.

We all know that there is an element here that speaks out at every Council meeting against positive evolution, an element that is afraid of losing influence. There is also another faction that for political reasons wishes to maintain the negative status quo of the previous administration.

A bombshell took place during the Public Comment Session. Earlier the Council had voted unanimously to approve a vendor(s) for the 4^th of July celebration.

City Administrator Smiley noted that there had been only three responses for a bid request and they had accepted the one that seemed best qualified.

At the Public Comment period a gentleman at the microphone claimed he represented the outfit that had done the job for the past 6+ years and his bid was several thousand dollars lower than the accepted one.

The inference was that something was not kosher in awarding this contract. It was met by outcries of dismay by the portion of the Council culminating in a reconsidering vote to not approve of the contract; and a call for an investigation.

Ironically that was from those who found no fault with how the previous superintendent of Recreation operated. For years there was no accounting of how funds were expended. Where are the records that would validate the loosing vendor’s claims?

Conversely will administration submit copies of the bids received; and an explanation why the lower bids failed?  What was the conditions set forth in the request for bids?

The Council has not as yet presented its amended Budget and Chairman Reid of its Finance Committee seems to have been dawdling in presenting a product to the Council. Could his action be influenced by his avowed agenda?  

The Public Comment session became a venue for those candidates for Council not on the “New Democrats” slate. And a platform for ex-Mayor Robinson-Briggs.