ONE OF SEVERAL-COUNCIL MEETING

Where were Councilors Storch and Reid during the Public Comments time of the Council Meeting? I expect that they had valid reasons not to be present during the closing moments of a long working session. They owe no one an explanation.

However, unless they had a damn good reason to have left I would consider their early (relatively speaking) departure  to be an insult to those citizens who were willing to stay until about 11pm in order to publicly use their opportunity to address their comments to the Council.

I must compliment Council President Rivers for extending a privilege to the public for comments after PMUA Executive Director Williamson had made his presentation. Unfortunately that courtesy took longer than anticipated. Rivers despite an apparent objection from Reid honored a promise to permit Citizen Alan Goldstein to make his presentation relating the history of the financial relationships between the PMUA and the City.

Goldstein's remarks were convoluted and disturbing; but the public should be aware of any implications. Since Reid was out of the room during most of Goldstein’s talk; I will extend to Alan Goldstein the privilege to print a concise copy on this blog.

Williamson answered some 17 questions which the Council President had previously submitted to him. I should say that he addressed those questions rather than answered them.

It was same old stuff once again. He noted that the Sewer Charges were based on the Water Company’s billings. For the 2013 bills the record period was the last quarter of 2011 and the first three quarters of 2012. He noted that it was impossible to allow for summer lawn watering which did not result in any usage of the sewer system. Nor could allowances be made for swimming pools unless a separate meter was installed for the PMUA’s use. He noted that that would raise a question of legal liability to the PMUA for which they had no answer.  

He did note the contracts  the PMUA has made with nearby communities relating to organic trash disposal and noted how Sandy had made an "unanticipated" strain on the authority's facilities.  I believe all of us were in the same shoe as the PMUA in not anticipating Sandy. Shame!

No answer was given to a comparison of”solid waste charges with those of private haulers or other communities with those of the PMUA. As to the fact that the Monday/Thursday group have 5 more non-collection days or about 2% of the total than the Tuesday/Friday collection; Williamson said that it was immaterial. If I heard him right he stated:”When one part of the town is not being serviced the other half is being taken care of.”   

I was under the impression that on Municipal holidays all except essential civic services were closed.

For more on the PMUA discussion perhaps the city site will inform when the meeting tape will be shown on the City TV station.

In the meantime please read Brenice’s Plaintalker II blog for today. She has a more concise reporter’s factual report of that portion of the meeting.Plainfield Today (Dan Damon) has also posted a long blog about the PMUA portion of the meeting.

Other discussion includes the 4^th of July celebration; plans are under way for July 6 and should be formalized by the end of April. This is covered in a separate blog on Plaintalker II. One should read the comments.

There is still discussion ongoing under Public Works Director Jackson between the QCBL people and representatives from Recreation. By inference from his remarks at the end of the meeting that may be Roland Muhammad.

Subsequent postings will further cover the Council meeting plus some personal remarks about the PMUA and the July 4^th weekend.

POTPOURRI NOT ALL FRIVOLOUS

All who wish to have a chance to question or have an opinion about the PMUA and/or the Youth Baseball leagues should attend tonight’s Council meeting. Of course at least regarding the PMUA there will be no opportunity for the public until the comment period at the end of the meeting. That session is limited to one hour by Council rules but may be extended by unanimous agreement.

That was a game to watch last night. The results were not in until the last second. Two records, one tied with the run back of the second half kickoff. The other was the first time the lights had gone out during a Super Bowl game. Neither team should feel bad about how they played.

Both area prognosticating Ground Hogs did not see their shadow so we will not have six more weeks of winter. They have been right only about 38% of the time and the weatherman has at least a 50% chance. To be sure they did not say that we might not have 5 weeks and 6 days of winter.

Since February is usually the worst winter month and there is always a snow storm around Easter the odds are against their being right.

What is not trivia are the resolutions that will be discussed tomorrow night. During the past two years The Council with a New Dems majority  passed resolutions and ordinances requiring the awarding of professional contracts including insurance to be by closed low qualified bid. 

There have been newspaper reports about how “the fair and open” process or “pay to play” cost municipalities exorbitant sums of dollars. As the Council votes we will learn if it is for friends (donors) or foe (you and I). Come and listen to any discussion.

THE SAME OLD

The items that will need discussion Monday night are:

• ·         Williamson’s tete’ a tete’ about the PMUA. Unfortunately I expect only a few pointed questions from the Council and pats on the back from certain administration supporters. 
•   The Youth Baseball League. It will be of interest to know who is actually running the program. If there is input from the people. 
•  The plans for this year’s “4^th of July” celebration.

There are no new or old Ordinances proposed which leaves 13 resolutions; two being the reappointment of members of the Planning Board and the Zoning Board. No new members are proposed for either board which I do not feel is in the best interest of the community.

This time there were three responses to the RFP for Depository of funds; Investors Bankcorp (the present designee), PNC Bank, and TD Bank. No details are available as to the responses or why Investors was selected over the other two. Or what the twelve criteria were.

A  Resolution approving paying Senior Center’s condo fees of $2750.00 a month or $33,000.00 annually to Dornoch is on the list. Is not the Center as a Municipal property exempt from City Taxes? If so should not that space in the Monarch be exempt? Is this taken into consideration of the City’s condo shares?

The City’s sloppy or lack of fiscal controls is reflected in the following resolutions;

• one designates Custodians for petty cash funds of the Senior citizens, the Fire Department, and Police Department. It is questionable if any of the people named custodian are still around, For example  the Custodian for the Police e Departments  petty cash is  a the Police Chief; a position that was dissolved 7 years ago.
• Another closing two unused petty cash funds.

Once more 4 insurance packages that are “being extended for a year" instead of having been subject to RFP as a resolution passed perhaps two years ago requires.

That pre-cast refreshment stand is back again. A resolution awarding a contract for $96,050.00 to Tec-Con the 3^rd lowest bidder. Of interest the lowest bitter about 15K was disqualified because the required lisenced plumber is in-house and is not a 10% owner in the firm as New Jersey Law requires.

This building for which a contract was signed by ??Recreation?? before being submitted to the Council for about 75k and presented as a turnkey operation will cost near 190k. All questions about the process aahve nevere been answered or investigated.

All will make the business agenda by majority vote.

MONDAY'S AGENDA

A first look at Monday's agenda shows only 11 resolutions for consideration suggesting a brief meeting. However I will hope to review the background data before commenting on the resolutions. Four or extensions of existing insurance plans.If memory serves me right this was before the Council in December and the question of why they were not let for bids was "temporarily" bypassed as these were existing contracts and had to be supported by a resolution to pay in 2013 until there expiration when the renewals would be subject to lowest bidder .

However the wording of the resolutions is "extension". I interpreted that to be a new contract that was not subject to resolutions passed  last year. AS I said I will have to read the support documentation and will get back Sunday.

It is the discussion items  and unfinished business. Council President Rivers is to be congratulated for having PMUA Executive Director Williamson to appear to "address concerns of the Council. She also has requested a followup discussion of the Youth Baseball League Matters. Additionally there will be discussion regarding t he 2013 4th of July celebration.

Those three items could result in a long but interesting meeting. Should be worth attending. 

CHARTER REPRISE

Today without the supporting documentation I will revisit my suggestions as to needed changes in Plainfield’s Charter.

1)   First; revising the number of names needed for a recall vote petition from 331/3% of residents to 25% or less than the number who voted at the last general election. That will result in approximately 2500 instead of an impossible 16,000 names.

2)      Restructure the Council to 9 members. There should be 6 wards 3 above the Mason/Dixon line and 3 below. By law they shoals have approximately equal numbers of residents and hopefully equal numbers qualified to vote. The smaller wards would perhaps by concentrations of economic and ethnic groups give “minorities a better voice on the Council. Certainly six wards will afford greater diversification on the Council.

3)         Council should have 1 representative from each ward and three city wide at large. The three being city wide provide a better representation of the population than the present  two Councilors representing only two wards each; wards that may have nothing in common.

4)          With 9 Councilors 3 year terms with a third being elected each year would be equitable. This would mean three year terms. One at large would be up for election each year. I favor term limits of 3 consecutive terms.

5)           The Mayor would still serve a 4year term. I would also support term limits.

6)            Our present 3 Department structure for all practical purposes        consists of two department that are unwieldy with many divisions that have no relationship with each other. The third Department; Public Safety contains only Police and Fire divisions. Both of which should be “stand alone”. see #7
Four smaller Departments; such as Administration, Finance, Public Works, Urban Development could be more effective. If Public Safety is retained it should also include the Health Care Divisions. Administration might need to be divided into Social Services and those that fit nowhere else. A restructuring of the various divisions might be needed.

7)           The Police Division must be headed by a chief to whom the various 6 or 7 bureau heads would report rather than a civilian Department director. I now believe that under a "chief" both Police and Fire should not be under a Department head but instead each should report directly to the City Administrator.That would eliminate Public Safety as a Department and Health would become again part of "administration.

8)            The City Clerk by State formats and our Charter works for the Council as its secretary. He/she should be appointed by the Council

9)             The present Charter provides for the Mayor to appoint the Corporation Counsel. He is supposed to represent both the Mayor/Administration and the Council. He cannot represent two bodies that may be in conflict with each other. Additionally in the past while he is at the Council meetings supposedly to give legal advice; he has acted as spokesman for the Administration. There should be separate legal resource for each body; Administration and Council appointed by the faction represented.

    None of the above is cast in cement. They are just recommendations which I believe to be logical in resulting in a better functioning municipality. Your suggestions would be most welcomed.

    I would hope someone would take an in depth look at the various divisions since some could be combined with others. For instance Community Development which just administers a million dollar Block Grant doesn’t belong in Public Works and may just be part of Social Services. The CFO could oversee Purchasing, Audit. Tax Assessor, Tax Collection, etc.