The time bulk of Monday night’s meeting devoted to the
Media/Mackson question and the liquor licenses renewal has been well covered in
Bernice’s Plaintalker II and Dan Damon’s Plainfield Today. Therefore I see no
reason to dwell on either subject.
None the less although I was chastised twice yesterday by
commentators by anonymous commentators to my Tuesday’s “Delayed Blog”, one I
posted the other merits either the trash can or a feature today; I consider a
few remarks about the meeting and Council is justified.
The “Event” Ordinance was reintroduced and accepted for
first reading as amended to permit multiple promotions by an individual.
To an outsider it seemed that the critical provisions of the
Ordinance that required promoters to reimburse the City for all of its expenses
related to their events had been initially completely overlooked while members
of the Council focused on the limitation of promoters to a single event a year.
It was almost as if some Councilors had an intrinsic
interest in having multiple events by certain entrepreneurs.
I do not believe that as was argued, the fact that for
several years the Council has permitted certain Commercial operators to hold
multiple events makes them “traditional”.
Nor can I accept the claim that these events benefit the
city any more than a three day Carnival or Circus does. I cannot deny that they
attract people who spend money to participate; ergo they do bring money into
the city and into the pockets of the organizers.
Does the city receive any of that money? No, only the fees
paid for the event which do not cover the municipal expenses. Do the merchants
benefit? Ask them, and they will tell you, as they have in the past at Council
meetings, that their businesses suffer when these “events” take place.
Until hard data can be produce the argument that it brings
money into the city does not hold water.
My critics claim that I pick on the Council perhaps as an
anti-Green Democrat or just for the hell of it. But I am disturbed because there
is evidence that members do not understand the fiduciary responsibility and do
their homework.
Monday night Councilor Greaves asked what was involved in a
resolution amending the 2014 budget which added grant monies and their use as
well as about the next resolution. In apparent response to some remark I did
not hear she then said “Nothing wrong with asking”
Councilor Greaves is right; not only is there nothing wrong
with questioning something in a resolution even if it is spelled out in the documentation,
but if there is a question it is the Councilor’s duty to ask.
However, the time and place to get answers to questions
about agenda items should be at the Agenda Fixing Session not after you have
voted to place it on the business agenda. Otherwise there is an impression that
one is not familiar with the material at the agenda setting meeting.
To be continued this afternoon.
One of those festivals dates back six years and another three years, not exactly the long duration implied at the council meeting.
ReplyDeletehttp://ptalker2.blogspot.com/2014/05/fiesta-one-upmanship-in-september-with.html
This wasn't the first time that Councilor Greaves has asked what something is all about, even when she had plenty of time before, during, and after the agenda-fixing session--that, after all, is what it's for. Of course, she has remarked that she's "not paid enough" to read through all those papers she gets before council meetings.
ReplyDeleteAnon, 2:25 PM, Greaves never said she does not make enough money to read her packet. Yes sometimes she seems unprepared, but don't lie on the lady.
ReplyDeleteTrue ,she did not say to "read her packet" but in the debate by Reid about the interest on tax liens she did remark about how the Councilors were not paid enough.
Delete