AGENDA FIXING MEETING #1

The meeting opened with a bombshell. Council President Mapp reported that he had received a letter from City Administrator Berry stating that Administration would not issue the RFQ for legal and financial experts to determine if the City should proceed in dissolving the PMUA.

The communication will be the subject of a separate posting later today or in the AM.

Mysteries  solved; the  reason that the error laden resolution appointing a Registrar of Vital Statistics. did not appear on the discussion agenda was due to an action by the President of the Council  He exercised  his power as the person responsible for the content of the Council’s agenda.

Apparently he had received numerous complaints about this person’s action in her role as Registrar. Therefore he felt that he could not recommend that the Council support that resolution.

The other mystery about why Diane Sherry-Buono was being proposed to be the municipal Treasure instead of CFO was explained by Al Restaino Director of Administration and Finance, Health and Social Services. He explained that the individual was qualified to be CFO but because of limited experience she was to be #2 in the Finance Audit Division filling a role that several years ago was filled by the City Controller. Meanwhile there is a RFQ posted on the City site for a CFO.

Approved for 2^nd reading at the Council meeting was an ordinance instructing Administration to place a question on the Ballot in November whether the city should go ahead with a Charter revision. The Ordinance will also include how a Commission of 5 will be selected.

Those who wish to be part of the study will b e on the ballot for voter selection. This election will be non-political and the candidates will need 100 qualified signatures to run.

MONDAY AM

On Sundays before a Council meeting I will try to post as much information as possible about the upcoming meeting. It is most likely that will be in place of a Monday blog.  I have done so this weekend.

Just a thought; how lucky we were this Saturday. The3 storm that did so much damage in New Jersey was only 35miles from us. It came in without warning. Think of how catastrophic it could have been  if it had been just a little north and hit Cedar Brook Park at that time.

I saw no mention of a rain date for the concert and fireworks. Was there one?  If so how would the public be notified? If not that could suggest poor planning.

AFS Agenda 7/9/12

What a pleasure it was on Saturday to glide on Watchung Ave from Hillside over the hill to Fernwood without a single car tremor. I Expect on Monday the remaining block to Leland will receive its top coat.

Thank you Mr. Jackson for seeing that one of the worst city corridor streets is finally no longer a tire buster.

Along with the spurt in long overdue road restructuring is a Resolution on the agenda to award Contract Group 2 to the lowest bidder. Once approved on the 16^th these streets should be in top condition before the temperature drops to a point where repaving should not be attempted.

The streets are: Fredrick St.,Oxford Ave.Sterling St.,Arlinton Ave (West 3^rd to West 9^th), Belleview Court, Buttfield Drive, Cedar Court, Sheridan Ave, (its lobbyist will be most happy to know that it is finally on the books),Cushing Rd. Cul de sac west of Leland, and Jean Terrace.

There is a Resolution for an additional$1820.00 for “Architectural and Administrative services” for the construction of the Control Center for the CCTV at Police Headquarters. It seems that they found “unknown space behind the wall and had to revise their plans. Did no one check old blue prints or were there none??

A resolution not listed on the 7^th’s agenda but in the packet is to reappoint Barbara Jennings-Wynn as Registrar of Vital Statistics.

Apparently her term of office expired on Dec. 31, 2011 It must be a custom in Oz to have people 

working without an approved contract for 6 months.

What is even more Ozian is that in the covering letter recommending this action the term of appointment is from July 16, 2011 (the day the Council will vote) to Dec 31, 2014. In the Resolution itself her appointment is to be retroactive (not noted) fromFeb.13, 2012 to Dec.31, 2014. Which is correct? 

Doesn’t the City Administrator check these things? And who filled that position between Jan.1, 2012 and the date she becomes employed? If someone did so where was the validation for payment? Once again 

Oz’s unique fiscal controls rise above the dust.

Which brings us to the Sherry-Buono’s appointment as City Treasurer? The term of this contract is from Aug. 1, 2012 to July 31, 2013.

The position of City Treasurer was reinstated to accommodate the employment of the  well qualified Ron Zilinski as temporary but part time CFO. Since Ms. Sherry-Buono was proposed but not acted upon in June of this year to be the CFO; why is there a change it her job title?

Perhaps that will be clarified Monday night.

FIRST LOOK AT AGENDA

I have had  a quick look at the agenda for Monday night's Agenda fixing session and after reviewing the support data at the Library will post something about it on Sunday. It appears that most items are of the non controversial nature.

However, there is a communication from the Mayor requesting the advice and consent of the Council for the appointment of Diane Sherry-Buono as Treasurer  for the City of Plainfield.

There was  a communication from the Mayor at the Agenda Fixing Session requesting approval of this individual for the CFO position. No resolution or commentary appeared during the business meeting on this matter. Thus I wonder if this previous non existent municipal office is indication that Ms. Sherry-Buono  was found to not be qualified as CFO.  Are we once again using a "Band-Aid" instead of filling the CFO position? 

Why can't Plainfield  fill its required  fiscal positions with proper personel?

HATCH ACT INFO

Although I have been quoting that which I believed was a copy of the perhaps original Hatch Act  there may have been revisions that clarified the paragraph that I found confusing.

Bernice sent me this reference:  Q.  May employees hold public office?

A.  Yes, while the Hatch Act prohibits candidacy for public office in partisan elections, it does not prohibit

a federal employee from being appointed to  or holding  public  office.  Additionally,  when  an

individual holds elective  office at the time that the  employee begins federal employment, he or she may

continue to serve in the elected position. However, the employee may not be a candidate for re-election if the election is partisan and the employee continues to be employed by a federal agency.

Th is further explained by the following opinion:

Candidacy for Partisan Political Office Prohibited. The law prohibits employees from running for nomination or as a candidate for election to a partisan political office. "Partisan political office" means any office for which any candidate is nominated or elected as representing a party any of whose candidates for presidential elector received votes in the last preceding election at which presidential electors were selected, but excludes any office or position within a political party or affiliated organization. The Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs report accompanying the legislation states that "Federal employees could run for office within party organizations and affiliated groups such as convention delegate."

Under these circumstances there may be merit to Abdul-Haqq's complaint.

REVISED LETTER TO DAN

I posted this yesterday afternoon and when I did re-read it Thursday night I found the second paragraph to be about the worst piece of so called prose (drivel)  that I have ever posted.I think the corrections make sense.   

Shame, Shame, Shame Dan for accusing me (PLAINFIELD TODAY )of TERMERITY; defined as; “unreasonable or foolhardy contempt of danger or opposition: rashness, recklessness. Synonyms: audacity, effrontery, foolhardiness.”

I did not consider that although the links that you provide in CLIPS is a very valuable and useful segment of that blog; a suggestion that since unfortunately so many of them have not shown any activity in over a year a suggestion that they should be deleted would be out of order...

Although you provide a daily synopsis of what new postings have taken place; these inactive space bloating listings tend to confuse the surfing reader. If it were only for cosmetic reasons to remove those dead links it would be worthwhile. It is a necessity to increase the value of your service.

Therefore Dan I don’t think my recommendation represented audacity but rather common sense.

I will grant that I, a common citizen who is out of the loop, may seem to exhibit rashness when being critical of any of the elements in the city governance. That would include the BOE.

All those seem to consider themselves above accountability and/or responsiveness to the public. I think the term is TRANSPARENCY.

However once again I am only doing what should be done.

ABOUT THE HATCH ACT

In June after the election I posted RELATING TO HAQQ'S CHARGE. In that post I believe that I addressed the basis for the registered complaint. The following paragraph is from the Hatch Act.

“SEC. 9A. (1) It shall be unlawful for any person employed in any capacity by any agency of the Federal Government, whose compensation, or any part thereof, is paid from funds authorized or appropriated by any Act of Congress, to have membership in any political party or organization which advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government in the United States.”

This wording in Bold Face is ambiguous. Does it mean that an employee in the affected agencies can n ot be a registered Republican, or Democrat or Communist? Or is it limited to political parties "advocating the overthrow etc."?

I did not find in my rapid read of the Act a clause prohibiting holding office. I shall review the act again when I have time. Could a non party affiliated individual working for an agency receiving federal funds hold local office? Where is Chief Justice Roberts when I need him?
The act itself is under the process of revision if it ever gets out of Congress. It would no lnger be applicable to local or state offices.