Wednesday, June 17, 2015

COUNCIL MEETING #3: BILINGUAL DAY CARE




There had to be a reason why with the exception of two speakers the Public Comment period was dominated by several dozen speakers concerned with the fate of the Bilingual Day care Center. 


We will return later to the resolution (R226-150) that was addressed by both Oliver and Young local contractors who do demolition work, regarding the awarding of a contract for the cleaning of the debris from the demolition of 117-25 North Ave. to the Yanuzzi Group of Kinnelon NJ.

Plaintalker II has an in detail report today regarding the Bilingual Day Care commentaries and the Council’ own discussion before tabling the concerned resolutions.

Not mentioned was Councilor Taylor’s long revilement about the Administration’s political motives in closing the Daycare Center subject as well as to be discussed later, the awarding of the contract to clean up 117-25 North Ave’s debris.

Taylor blasted this administration’s policy of taking jobs away from Plainfielders by having a policy to “outsource” services. Overlooked is that this was the modus operandi of the Robinson-Briggs era during which among other divisions and sections the local Health Office’s services were eliminated and transferred to the County; the animal control section two full time employees eliminated and replaced by outside contractors who gave limited service. Let us not forget that Sharon instead of filling a CFO position hired a limited part time outsider with a full time job in another community.

Sharon’s watch also got rid of the Grant writer a move that has cost the city thousands of dollars.

Forgotten also was the very successful transfer of the well run Dudley (halfway) House to a non-profit agency without loss of services but saving the city many dollars.
 
The basic question in the over two year transfer of the Bilingual Day Care services is not the loss of services but the elimination of city paid civil service jobs with the accompanied of loss of the city employees Union supported benefits.

In the Dudley House experience it was claimed last night by one of the Councilors that the staff was retained and the facility was still providing the same high quality services. The City has saved on the elimination of tax payments, as well as contracted union perks.

There is no reason to expect otherwise when this transfer takes place.

WE need a better understanding about the Bilingual Day Care’s function and financial obligations. The relationship with the BOE is not clear.

Preschool education is federally funded, but administered through the school district's Early Childhood programs. However all the personnel at the Bilingual Day Care Center are City Employees, not BOE? (1) If a new agency talks over the program will the BOE no longer have any contact with it? (2) If it is a BOE supervised and federally funded program why does the City employ its staff?

It seems that Taylor is right but not in the as she has charged; it is political. The true issue is not the elimination of services to a needed population, but the preservation of city paid jobs funded according to a union contract. 


The monies saved here should be used for other infrastructure priorities.

A final thought; Bilingual day care services are essential in today's society which contains an increasing number of "Latinos" especiallyy in a city like Plainfield where they consist of over 40% of the population.  In fact such a program should be made available in all preschool and school environments in order that an English speaking population can communicate with this country's growing Hispanic citizens.  

By noon Tomorrow more about the Council meeting


2 comments:

  1. Just a note. The funds for Pre-K can flow through the district to individual Pre-K schools. These can be privately run "for profit" operations. There are no restrictions in that respect. The individuals operating them are corporate employees of the Pre-K school. From this example, it would seem that a city operation can also be set up and run using the same guidelines. This seems that it would simply turn over the operation to a private concern. As you pointed out, the main difference would be the classification of the employees from government to private. Certainly a good thing from a taxpayer prespective.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If we can remove people from the City payroll to private payroll with limited or no loss of jobs, then that makes simple sense. I can't understand why the City would be involved in Day Care or anything that is not the Public School system. This just adds more of a burden to the tax payers and thanks to years of poor fiscal handling and the PMUA, we need some relief in this town.. Needed services should be provided, but the tax payers should not have to pay for all of them.

    ReplyDelete