POTPOUURI FOR A SNOW DAY

“February is usually the worst winter month”. That is what I wrote Feb.4^th.

With the exception of the addition of a resolution offered by Councilor Mapp endorsing direct train service into NYC the agenda for Monday night’s meeting is the same as discussed at the agenda setting session.  

We know that there are at present no plans for new tracks under the Hudson and that the present tunnels under both the Hudson and East River can not handle more trains. The project Christie cancelled was a stupid boondoggle that ended  blindly in Macy's basement. There was no connection to conoting East or North. The original plans which would have permitted a connection to Grand Central Station  was discarded for the one Christie objected. It will be years perhaps a decade before a reasonable alternate is approved and constructed. This is an exercise in futility but welcomed.

I have not read it nor will I have a chance because of the weather to possibly do so before Monday. Nor have I been able to check to see if the conditional amendments to the four “insurance” resolutions have been incorporated.
 12 NOON: A look at the agenda reveals that the four "insurance resolutions" are on the CONSENT AGENDA. With the sums involved and all the talk about bidding etc. there is no remote validation that these items should be on the Consent Agenda unless in error or another attempt to slide them through.

Also on the agenda is a presentation from an outfit called “Ethical Electric”. Every time I try to enter its site I get an error message. Thus, I can tell little about it except that it is a start up and purchases power from wind farms and solar panel companies for distribution over a utility’s grid.

Would someone explain to me how a company can by energy cheaper than the established utilities are able to purchase and/or manufacture and then transfer it over a grid at a price less than the operator of the grid can rationalize? 

When I wrote not to trust groundhog predictions I should also have added one should always question the “legal interpretation” from attorneys with a vested interest. 

To refresh my memory about some of my objections when the original enabling resolution (1995-19) to form the PMUA was passed (9/20/1995); I looked it up via the link on DUMP THE PMUA.

Having done so it is obvious that just as  Alan Goldstein has been trying to convince the Council (and us);  PMUA has been in violation of its “charter” and despite the so called legal opinion of former Corporation Counsels and its own legal Counsel is an agency and beholden to the city.

Section VII of the Ordinance states “no member (of the Authority Commissioners) shall receive compensation either direct or indirect, in excess of $4500 per annum.”

Section II states “The Plainfield Municipal Utilities Authority is and shall be an agency and instrumentality of the City”

But my greatest objection at that time was directed at one clause which was never implemented although mentioned in the "whereases" and specifically in Section III “The purposes of the Plainfield Municipal Utilities Authority shall be (a) the provision and the adequate distribution of an  adequate supply of water for the public and private uses of the city and its inhabitants, within the city, (b) is to keep the water supply free of pollution and among further mandates in that section are sewer and solid waste.

Thank goodness they never had the opportunity or desire much less the capability to purchase the system from Elizabethtown Water Co.

Since the Council a ft er  is experience with the WBLS seems to accept the fact that it can not investigate an wrong doing in an "agency of the city"; who will. Experiences of the last few years  makes it obvious that neither the County or the State have any desire to expose and punish governmental organization fraud.

GUEST BLOGGER : ALAN GOLDSTEIN

BLOGGER’S NOTE: I had invited Alan Goldstein to have a guest  posting since I had felt that his very important message at the Council meeting relating to PUMA had missed its mark due to the necessary background facts to substantiate his disclosures.

Alan first submitted a 10 point bullet summary which I considered too simplified and asked him to amplify but still be concise an impossible task.

This is the commentary he has given me permission to post;  plus the 10 bullet points.

As much as I appreciate your invitation, I respectfully decline to be nickled and dimed about a complex subject involving over $21 million of Plainfield residents' money.  I am sorry that the attention span of the vast majority is locked in somewhere between nil and next to nothing.  This is exactly what is hoped for by those who seek to take advantage and abuse their elected and appointed offices at public expense.  And they are richly rewarded because the Council-going public has become so used to obfuscation and non-answers it can't distinguish between trash and garbage.

 As a case in point of inbred attention deficit disorder, let's deconstruct a small bit of blogging from Dan Damon, who first takes me to task for asserting that PMUA commissioners have paid themselves illegal compensation for years and noting the not-so-obvious fact that there is no provision in the Inter Local Agreement that calls for the city to pay PMUA $100,000 a month.  Unfortunately this takes time, if you have any actual interest in the why, how, and what of things.  "And that is too bad," Dan writes, "because there are real issues with the PMUA, from its rates and their justification to the $1 million ripoff of the ratepayers for the Watson and Ervin settlement and more."

 So, just like PMUA attorney Leslie London's attempt to convince us that benefits are not compensation, Dan wants us to think that rates are real issues, but stolen compensation that is paid through rates is not of consequence.  Could it be that he's covering up and might know someone who's benefited from such largesse?  London's opinion is false in all respects, but it takes time and detail to refute her arguments.  Too much time apparently for Dan, where specifics and facts only intrude on "real issues" like rates are high.  That Corporation Counsel Minchello actually agreed with me on the compensation issue went un-noted, not only on Dan's blog, but all the others as well. 

 Which brings us to the "$1 million ripoff of the ratepayers", another "real issue".  Yes it is, of course, but why waste everyone's time relating the flimsy justification contained within the meeting minutes?  Who cares about someone being made a commissioner one week, being handed a city contract that wasn't publically bid a few weeks later from which they could pocket $3,000 or $4,000 by just finding someone else to actually do the work, and then handing over a $1 million slice of payola to the managerially challenged?  Too much detail and obviously not real enough when bitching and moaning for a couple of minutes ought to suffice.

Now I'll get to the $100,000 monthly payout to the PMUA, otherwise known as the $1.2 million bait and switch.  You can 'read' about it here- http://dumppmua.com/files/PMUAInterlocalAgreement.pdf.  Section 203B beginning on page 10.  If you take the time and find it, let me know.  If you can't, I guess it's not real enough, certainly not enough for the City Council to be wasting their time over, not when they can be wasting your time and money over stuff like $200 fines.  What sort of negligence is it when the City Council won't take 20 or 40 minutes of their time to save PMUA ratepayers $50,000, and cower in the face of $300 of legal hackery?
(Alan Goldstein 2-5-13:-- 11:45 pm)

The bullet points
People prefer concise, so here is concise:

1)  PMUA commissioners are limited to $4500 in direct and indirect compensation but have illegally taken much more.  
2)  Three sitting commissioners are each in for about $100,000 apiece.
3)  Nowhere in the contract between the City and the PMUA does it call for the city to cut a check to PMUA for $100,000 a month.
4)  The sewer lease is falsely portrayed as revenue sharing although PMUA has never paid a penny in revenue sharing.
5)  The contract, also known as the Inter Local Agreement, was fully approved at the end of 1997, but within a few months, after a change in administration, a secret financial deal was put into place.
6)  It took five years, and several twists and turns in the wording of PMUA's financial statements, to even come close to acknowledging that the operative arrangement was not the one spelled out in the ILA.
7)  PMUA and the City both permit conflicts of interest and ethics violations to taint their contracting and voting procedures and policies.
8)  Covering things up, while playing fast and loose with facts and law, are standard operating procedures.
9)  The $1 million settlement was granted for specious reasons, and the rationale offered for approving it was absurd.  The minutes are worth reading.
10)  The fraud has been going on for many years, while those in a position of oversight are either disengaged or actively involved.

Do read the  Inter Local Agreement

MORE PMUA

Tomorrow, Thursday, I am going to post a guest by invitation blog about the PMUA  by Alan Goldstein.

Therefore; I am posting this afternoon some of my thoughts about PMUA which I had intended for  Thursday.

Disregarding any possible  financial irregularities involving the PMUA; and there is a strong probability that there have been many in the past and perhaps in the present, no one has asked the basic question about the need for the PMUA.

When it was formed the argument was that there was too much illegal dumping in the city, too many residents did not employ “garbage” haulers, there was no enforcement of clean lots codes etc. Also the Sewer system including storm sewer was antiquated and needed upgrading and better maintenance.

These were things that a municipal authority could accomplish better although there was no explanation why such an authority could enforce any better violations of municipal codes if it had to rely on the same police department and code inspectors that the city had in place.

There was no explanation why all the functions that would be assigned to the authority could not be done by a well run Public Works Department. The DPW in many communities provides and does it well all the services assigned to PMUA.

But in Plainfield the very DPW leadership that was incapable of operating such systems became the Executive and Associate Director of the new Authority. Why were they now able to provide better service than they could as city employees? 

In part it was due to the mandated requirement for the residents to use the PMUA as their waste collector, the private vendor having been frozen out. It was also due to the fact that they had better access to needed funds.

In essence the only change was a new bureaucracy formed using the same individuals but at a higher salary and still dependent on the same support services.

Nothing was changed except every property owner had to pay for the Authority’s waste services. All property owners were now being billed by the Authority .That included sewer services which had previous been part of the municipal tax but now became an arbitrarily non deductible fee. What was once now a tax deductible charge had become taxable?

Moreover the property owner sewer services’ chargers were determined by the water company’s previous October thru September billed usage. No accounting was made for lawn watering and other services that did not end in the sewer system.

There has never been any attempt to rationalize the sewer charges by using an annualized derivation from the 6 or 7 months winter period. Home owners were told but not offered a separate $2500.00 meter that could be installed after the WC’s meter to cover lawn and pool flow. Williamson did make reference to this but said that PMUA rejected it because of potential liability.   

We now had a new bureaucracy who could parcel out nepotistic job contracts and who had at the same time seemed to have found their pot of gold. They have been abetted in their claim that they answer to nobody Meanwhile the taxpayers have assume increasing debt responsibility.

For the first time in this administration’s 7 years we have a Director of Public Works who given the financial support is capable of operating both the waste management and Sewer systems at a higher and cheaper than the PMUA.

I for one would find it desirable to get rid of the "damned" PMUA with its history of financial flimflam and put the onus for sewer and solid waste collection where it belongs; a public works responsibility. If it is considered desirable as it should be, to continue the solid waste collection as a mandatory city function that can be accomplished by Ordinance. 

This could be coordinated with if any change in the charter and revision of the department structure.

COUNCIL MEETING #2

As a break before next week’s business meeting from what could be several discussions about the PMUA there were other actions taken Monday night. None were binding but all placed the Resolutions on the business agenda.

There is just one PMUA matter that I must first report. Councilor Williams asked why the PMUA had just hired a supervisor to over see only 4 security personnel. Williamson's response was that it was considered necessary.

It turns out that that individual is an old friend and well travelled County and City beneficiary. Gibson who has served as director of Public Safety in Plainfield as well as having been a Councilman. He has also had several jobs with the County  including one  in  the Sheriff's office.  In May 2011 he was a subject in an investigation. double clink for link here

As expected the four resolutions with proposed extensions for a year of various insurance contracts met strong objections from various Council Members especially Williams and Starch. Once again the Ordinance requiring these type contracts to be subject to RFP closed bids was being bypassed.

Williams pointed out that documentation the Council members had received noted how much money a municipality could save by the bid method rather than the preferred vendor which is the manner Plainfield has awarded its contracts over the recent years. Two contracts have been supposedly negotiated directly with the “comfortable” carrier.

One of the other two uses brokers as administrators of the program as required by law. The so called self insurance state pool pays the “broker’s fee” so on the surface we are not charged. However that fee is added to our percentage charges to the pool. Yes we do pay the broker and this is something that should be determined by bid.        

The other program is also with the administrator organization. Apparently this company has third party commitments to which we would become obligated. Councilors expressed the desire to negotiate the presence of those liabilities in our contract.

Under pressure from Storch it was reported that RFPs were being prepared and could be published within the next week. These resolutions are supposed to be amended to 3 months limit before Monday’s vote.

Councilor Williams objected to the appointment of Investors Savings as the city's repository in part because of that bank's contribution to the 4^th of July fund which was subverted for the WBLS payment and last year for its contribution to an “illegal provider responsible to the Recreation division”. She noted that this was a fraudulent operation. If this is so and although there previous vague charges of irregularities in the solicitation of funds this is the first time I heard any specific charge; it would be nice to know if there has been any investigation and if so what were the findings and what action was taken.

WE were told first that of the three banks Investor was the only one that met the 12 criteria for approval. I find it inconceivable that my Bank the large PNC group could fail. Subsequently it was remarked that Investors offered the best interest rate. Although unsubstantiated that would be good reason.

The Council was informed that the agreement with Dornoch committed the City for its proportionate share of condo fees.

Finally I believe despite Councilor Reid’s valid objection to the total costs of the prefab concession stand it will be on the agenda. No one has ever acknowledged who committed the city to the purchase of the building. Nor why the impression that it was a turnkey operation was not corrected. Once again an apparent financial irregularity originating in Recreation has gone ignored if not condoned.