COUNCIL MEETING PART 2

Before I address the pearl of today’s blog there is one more Ordinance item about which I would comment. That is the one mandating direct deposit of checks.

The Council correctly has concerns about the approximate 150 out of some 500 employees who do not have a bank account. There are also those with accounts who do not want direct deposit for whatever reason.

Since I do not believe in direct deposit or electronic bill payments I can understand those concerns. However since Administration claims it costs 51 cents to process a check that would be approximately $250.00 per pay period or about $6000.00 a year on a semimonthly pay period. That is truly a drop in the bucket and new costs as well as changes in other costs in issuing a paycheck have not been factored in.

Administration has not completely though out the mechanics and remarked that those who do not have bank or Credit Union accounts would be able to get their pay from a designated bank. The costs have not been factored in.

One possible route would be for the City with the Unions OK

to strike a deal with a Credit Union to issue not a “debit” card which implies a bank account; but the pay in what is essentially a “gift card” which can be used like a credit card until depleted.   

That takes us to a comment I received Tuesday to that days blog, “Delayed Report”. My original intent was to trash the comment. However, since that Anon seems to be a person of some intelligence and perhaps high education  as reflected in his vocabulary; I elected, instead of trashing or  even posting it under comments,that I should give it the exposure that it would not receive otherwise.

I am posting it exactly as received. You will note that there are typos which all of us do make from time to time so do not hold them against the writer.

     

  Doc, I have read far too often your insipid and insensitive remarks. Many times I ignore your obtuse analysis and count your lack of cogent arguments as a symptom of a superannuated pedestrian who for some odd reason feels he he is lucud. You and your minions who rally behind you are a disgrace.

I would have preferred that this Anon not be a coward and put his name or face on his epistle so I could direct my reply directly to him/her .

As you can see it was written by someone who has by virtue of the scope of his vocabulary an extraordinary self-ego of which he is ashamed to acknowledge. 

This person believes that by being pretentious he can be authoritative. But indeed such phrases as “superannuated pedestrian” border on malapropism.

Regarding my “minions” I am flattered that some thinks I have a following that is dependent on me. Since Webster defines minions as “someone who is not powerful or important and who obeys the orders of a powerful leader or boss” I would think that this would be more appropriate to describe the opinion some have of Plainfield’s Councilors.

I cannot comprehend why this individual reads my blog since he twice (insipid, pedestrian) comments that he finds me to be boring.

Anyhow, I hope my "minions" will not desert my blog and comment frequently.