ALMOST BLANK

To hot to blog. AC makes life bearable and I can't remember how we survived in the ancient times ;1920-50s.

I am having a weird problem with g.mail. All correspondence is minuscule as to font and difficult to read. That is the only problem with Google that I am having at present.
This line is an example. I have been unable to find where I can return to normal.

R222-12 IN OZ

Was it due to something similar to Dorothy’s tornado for Plainfield’s Council seemed to have suddenly been transported again to OZ when R 221-12 and 222-12 were brought up for consideration.

It seems that last week in Court the unnamed Judge rule that although despite the fact that the State had approved Plainfield’s Special Charter which gives the Council the right to impose a fine up to $200.00 there were two reasons that it could not be applied; the first was that State Law prohibited a Municipal Council from acting as a criminal court and secondly there was no provision for the Council to enforce collection of the fine.

Therefore the Council’s Resolution was invalid and the Council prepared a replacement resolution (222-12). But first R036-12 had to be rescinded to eliminate the offending resolve. When the vote was called; R221-12 passed by a 6:1 vote. Councilor Greaves had voted to retain R036-12. But after some hurried whispering before the next item could be brought up, Councilor Greaves changed her vote to make it unanimous.

R222-12 was then presented. It had been posted on the agenda to only eliminate the improper resolve which was replaced with one that stated “that the findings of the investigation conducted by Ramon River (sic) Esq. are hereby memorialized and adopted by the Governing Body.”

However there was a further amended resolution which greatly toned down the first resolve by removing such terms as ‘willfully committing serious violations” and “being willfully uncooperative.” That had to first be vote on to replace 22-12 as written.

When the amended resolution was opened Councilor Reid went into his 33RPM speech about how much the Council had wasted the public’s funds over a mere $20,000.00, that legal fees including the cost of the investigation were going to amount to over $70K; how he arrived at that figure I don’t know. Perhaps he was assuming that the City was picking up the Mayor’s legal fees.

He added that the whole thing had made us the laughing stock of the country. WE should just drop the whole matter.

Reid ignored the fact that it was the Mayor’s suit against the Council that brought notoriety to the matter.

Reid then asked if the County Prosecutor, the State Attorney General or the DCA had replied to the request for investigation. When he was told that only the County Prosecutor had replied that he saw no merit to pursue an action, Councilor Reid again said that there was reason enough to drop the matter. There has been no follow up to see if either State agency received their letters.

Could anyone expect a different opinion from a County Prosecutor’s office that refused to investigate the hate “Scarlet” letter that apparently had been produced on a City Hall machine, or take action against a high city official who served a three day suspension after being found guilty of using a city vehicle while engaged in the same illegal action for which lesser personal have been routinely terminated? Could the Prosecutor be influenced by political party affiliation? We will never know.

After R222-12 was adopted by the not surprising 4:3 vote, the Mayor who attends the meetings as a guest along with the Corporation Counsel and City Administrator who are there as resources ask for a “point of personal privilege” a parliamentary procedure reserved for official members of the meeting body.

Council President Mapp reminded her of her status but granted her the floor to make a statement. Instead the Mayor who had come prepared with an easel and charts started on an attack against the hearing stating she had never had the opportunity to question her accusers She remarked that her action had stop the shootings in Plainfield (see today’s Courier and this year’s number of reported shootings).

At that point Map cut her off noting that he had not granted her the right to make a presentation.

One other weird note; Councilor Greaves had arrived about 20 minutes late for the meeting just before the Ordinances for Second Reading were up for vote. She is first on the roll call and when the vote was called she appeared confused about what was being voted and asked to be permitted to cast her vote last.

COUNCIL JUNE MEETING #1

Among the routine business conducted at Monday’s Council meeting outstanding items were; the passing of the belated 2012 budget, replacing R032-12 which strongly reprimanded the Mayor for the WBLS affair with a milder R222-12,and passing on first reading an Ordinance requesting the placing on the ballot a public question regarding a study for Charter revision.

Remarkable, despite administrations known objections to the 50K included for a study for the advisability of abolishing the PMUA and returning its functions to the Dept of Public Works etc; there were no public comments prior to the adoption vote.

The amended budget was adopted by a 6:1 vote; the sole negative vote was by Councilor Reid after there were already 5 YES votes insuring adoption of the budget for2012. Councilors NO vote was undoubtedly a personal point making action, not a rejection of the budget.

Prior to the vote Reid had delivered his homily on how the $50,000.00 was a waste of needed public funds when the PMUA was providing a great service to the people and the City in keeping the down town clean although there might be a problem with high fee. He remarked that all was needed would be for the Council to sit down and talk to the dedicated public servants who compromised the PMUA Board of Commissioners.

Reid further said that the 50k was approved through “trickery” by placing it in the temporary June budget which he had changed his original NO vote to YES to give the 5 votes needed for adoption since without it the City would have to “shut down”.

R222-12 will be the subject of a separate blog.

The revision of the Charter is necessary. Some of its unique deficiencies have been known for years and a 1999 study had made recommendations but for some reason the study was dropped. Non-the- less the Council has taken the first step needed.

This year problems in the Charter became glaring especially in the role of the Council’s legal support. It reached a negative peak in the implementation of the resolves in of R32-12 which will be the topic of the next blog.

Monday night the council unanimous passed a first reading on an Ordinance requesting placing on the ballot a question asking the voters of the city “whether or not they wish to establish a Charter Commission to study the Special Charter of the City of Plainfield”

This process can take three years; the first year is to ask for the formation of a Commission by Referendum, the second year would require an Ordinance (by law) to recommend revisions of the Charter or a new one plus a ballot Referendum and the third year a Referendum on the “new” charter.

Despite the City Solicitor acting as Corporation Counsel’s opinion the in accordance to State law that proposed changes in the Charter had to be initiated by an Ordinance and then approved by Referendum this question had to be initiated by an Ordinance; It has been this observers opinion that this year’s Ordinance is unnecessary and that a Resolution would accomplish legally the same end.

What is my reasoning? In the first place there is a time limit of not later than 81 days before the general election when such a request has to be received by the “clerk of the county

Second in the unlikely occurrence of a Mayor’s veto there would not be in this Council by past experience the needed 5 votes to override the veto. Also there would be the danger at this late date of passing the deadline.

Thirdly although any possible change to the Charter must be initiated by Ordinance per State law, this request does not impact on the Charter; it only asks if the citizens wish to study the Charter for possible changes.

State Law 19:37-1 states that the governing body may request the placing of a question on the ballot by Ordinance or Referendum.

By definition a Referendum is an expression of opinion or intent; whereas an Ordinance is a law. The request for the public’s wishes in no way qualifies as a law. Thus a simple Referendum would accomplish the desired action in one strep and would assure that time deadlines would be met.

A QUICK SHORT NOTE

Late night, early morning appointment= my comments on Council meeting will be delayed until late afternoon.

However, despite the unusually small public attendance the meeting had a great deal of "meat" and some turmoil. Since Bernice was there I am sure her blog today will as usual contain most of the important factual goings on. Thus, my report(s) will be more commentary then plain factual.

At the end perhaps a most important significant moment occurred when Councilor Annie announced that she will be attending Graduate School to pursue Masters Degrees in Business Administration and Political Administration. She will be leaving the Council before her term expires.

It is impossible to express what a loss this is to the Council and City. Annie has raised the position to a level that only a rare few have. Her youth, her knowledge, her commitment, and her desire to better this community are combinations which we would wish all Council Members had. Annie you will be missed.

MYSTERY SOLVED

The mystery is solved; a closer reading and comparing proposed R222-12 with the to be rescinded R036-12 reveals that this Resolve has been eliminated:

“FURTHER RESOLVED, that Mayor Robinson-Briggs is fined the maximum amount ($200) per the Plainfield City Charter for not complying with the legal requirements of said City Charter to produce evidence for a City Council investigation into the misuse of public funds; and be “

In its place a new innocuous resolve has been added: “Further Resolved, that the findings of the investigation conducted by Ramon River, Esq. are hereby memorialized and adopted by the Governing Body”

This entire means is that the Mayor has not been fined $200.00. Did the City pick up her legal expenses in here suit against the Council? Has she dropped the suit in favor of this change? How much in legal fees has this cost the city, Councilor Reid?

FOOD FOR THOUGHT

Robert H. Frank writing in Sundays Money page of recent NY Times is advocating spending funds on repairing our infrastructure especially the roads and bridges as a positive means of combating the recession.

I find this interesting for four years ago when Obama was pushing the stimulus funding plan I wrote that the Federal Government would best serve the country in combating unemployment through a revival of the PWA and the CCC programs of the Roosevelt administration.

Unfortunately instead dollars were spent on political boondoggles with little benefit for most of us.

Of interest in Frank’s article is his call for borrowing to the hilt now to restore the dangerously depreciating bridges and roads. His argument is not only will it create jobs now but even with the interest payments and reduction of principle it will cost us less than will the ultimate emergency replacement off failing structures fifteen years from now.

I am not an economist so I cannot vouch for the validity of his figures but it is an intriguing thought that should bear consideration at all levels of government.

That should be a strange position for one who believes in old fashion values of having funds on hand before buying something. That is a lesson learned during the Great Depression.

On the other hand the programs I referred to went a long ways to shorten the effects of the jobless state of the nation in the 30s.

MORE MONDAY NIGHT STUFF

Sorry I can not tell you what are the resolves of the replacement resolution citing the Mayor for the WBLS incident. R222-12 was missing from the packet in the Library.

The only information on the agenda sheet is that it consists of the recommendations of the investigating officer which I do not have on hand. If memory serves me right ; those recommendations were at best evasive.

There are two resolutions pertaining to the July 4th celebrations; R240-12 is for $8068.00 to the County for the use of Cedar Brook Park, part for police presence and the rest for clean up. R241-12 is for the fireworks in the amount of$13,500.00.

The costs for the other activities have to be reported by Recreation Division who is in charge of the weekend events. There are no resolutions in April or May to authorize any expenditures and it may be covered in the budget. However given Recreations track record it may be difficult to obtain complete data.

In the years past there was an Independence Day Committee that worked with Recreation and had complete charge of the Independence Day activities. Part of its charge reads: "A. The Committee shall be in full and complete charge of the arrangements for and the manner of conducting the Independence Day Celebration."
.
Unfortunately there has been no appointments to that committee so that it has not functioned since 2001 well before the present administration. It should be revitalized so that the 4th celeb ration can return to near the level it was when the parade was THE PARADE in Central Jersey.




A gala celebration is to be held this year but there has been minimal publicity

Among unanswered questions is when will the CFO be submitted for approval, a Council responsibility? Also the Purchasing Agent is leaving. Tuesday night I asked if a replacement was being sought and was told a RFQ was ready to be posted. As of this morning there is none listed on the Plainfield site. Both issues are examples of sloppy fiscal handling by our government.