CORPORATION COUNSEL MATTERS.

One should give credit where credit is due. Although I had many questions about the 13 Resolutions offered by the “Corporation Counsel”; the duration of the contracts was not one of them.

Credit goes to Bernice Paglia for noticing that this Council was committing money up to June 30, 2013. Budget expenditures can be for only that budget year.

On Jan1, 2012 Plainfield had changed from a fiscal July1-June 30 fiscal year to a calendar year budget. Whoever wrote the resolutions and whoever signed the resolution must not have been appraised of such a change. Once again the lack of responsible qualified financial officers has resulted in an error.

I did have a question for clarification’s sake about the “not to exceed amount of $x.00 in each resolution. Since lawyers traditionally charge fee for service based on time down to the 15 minute unit this $5,000.00 (example) could have represented a retainer fee or a total pay able fee for services rendered by contract.

My assumption was that it reflected neither but was a base pool from which the attorney would be paid. If his services ran over that amount then a request would have to be made to the Council to pay additional bills.

There is a problem in the awarding of professional contracts by the “open and fair’ process of approved vendors. The lowest hourly rate is not determined by bidding.

On that subject, not having seen the support contracts, what is the hourly rate paid various attorneys including the City Solicitor who serve the City?

Why has not the Corporation Council position been filled? Is it because Williamson occupied it as a full time employee? When (was) an Ordinance was passed creating such a position? Was it in the McWilliams’ administration? Or, did the full time status just evolved?

It can be seen by reading the City Charter and Administrative Codes that the present Plainfield Municipal Legal Department differs from that in the Code and Charter;

Sec. 2:4-1. Corporation Counsel.

(a) As provided by Charter, Section 4.7, there shall be a Corporation Counsel, who shall be appointed by the Mayor with the advice and consent of the Council. S/he shall serve during the term of office of the Mayor appointing him/her and until the appointment and qualification of his/her successor.

(b) The Mayor, in his discretion, may remove the Corporation Counsel whenever the Mayor deems that the public interest so requires. Such removal shall take effect twenty (20) days after the Mayor files notices of removal with the Clerk and makes service on the individual by personal service or certified mail, return receipt requested to the individual's last known address. Unless prior thereto the Council shall at a regular or special meeting disapprove of such removal by resolution adopted by the affirmative vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the entire membership. In the event of such resolution of disapproval, the Corporation Counsel shall be restored to his/her office without loss of pay.

(A.C. 1969, 4.1, as amended by MC 1998-01, § 1, January 28, 1998.)

Sec. 2:4-2. Corporation Counsel; powers and duties.

The Corporation Counsel shall be the chief legal advisor to the Mayor and to the Council. He/she shall be compensated with a fixed annual salary as established by ordinance. He/she shall be, subject to the provisions of Sections 2:4-3, 2:4-4 and 2:4-5, prosecute and defend all legal or equitable actions or proceedings in any court in which the City or any office thereof may be a party. He/she shall draft ordinance, resolutions, legislative bills and other documents and agreements required by the Mayor or a member of the Council. He/she shall advise the administrative departments, boards and commissions of the City other than the Planning Board and the Board of Adjustment (which are authorized and required to appoint separate counsel) as to all legal matters within their jurisdiction.

(A.C. 1969, 4.2, as amended by MC 1998-01, § 1, January 28, 1998.)

Sec. 2:4-3. Assistant Corporation Counsels.

The Corporation Counsel may with the written approval of the Mayor and the advice and consent of the Council, appoint bond counsel, and two (2) Assistant Corporation Counsels, to serve at his/her pleasure. The first assistant shall be designated as City Solicitor and the second assistant as City Prosecutor. In the event of the temporary absence or inability of the Corporation Counsel to act, the City Solicitor may serve temporarily in his/her place and stead.

(A.C. 1969, 4.3, as amended May 5, 1969; MC 1998-01, § 1, January 28, 1998.)

Sec. 2:4-4. City Solicitor.

The Assistant Corporation Counsel designated City Solicitor, under the direction and supervision of the Corporation Counsel, shall, subject to the approval of the Council, represent the City in litigation before all courts, boards and commissions in trials, hearings and appeals. He/she may appeal any action or proceedings in which a judgment has been rendered adverse to the City, subject to the approval of the Council.

What is described is far different from the actual stable of lawyers representing the City. When has our Corporation Counsel actually participated in a court case? What are our annual legal costs?

I will grant that we should not expect a generalist such as one holding a Corporation Counsel office to be an expert in all phases of legal matters; but if the Corporation Counsel is full time and has no outside commitments do we need this number of attorneys?

If the Council can not address this to the satisfaction of the public; I hope it will be a subject for the Charter Review Committee.

I would not expect an opinion from Corporation Counsel; but since Plainfield’s Charter predates the Faulkner Act Charters it should not be bound by the provisions of that act in revising its Charter. I contend that alterations to our Charter can be by Ordinance with State approval.

If this is true the Council could and should immediately act to have its independent Counsel. (More later)

FIRST COMMENT COUNCIL MEETING

Quietly as befits the need for politicians to preserve face one of the most important moments during the meeting occurred quiet innocently when after conclusion of a series of Corporation Counsel appointments Councilor Williams asked the City Solicitor about the state of the Mayor’s suit against the Council (and the City).

Acting Corporation Counsel Minchello in a conversational tone of voice noted that “the Mayor had dropped her suit”.

Thus endeth another asinine self-centered episode in the annals of OZ. Perhaps Council Committee Chairman Reid in his ongoing crusade to limit legal costs incurred by the Council will be able to report the dollars and cents of public funds wasted on this episode and the total Council and Administration costs related to the WBLS affair. I would hope that they would be itemized.

Two breaks in the humdrum routine Council action resulted from Reid’s motion to table the $71432.03 prefab Joe Black Baseball field concession stand. A companion but new resolution authorizing 20k plus engineering fees never made it out of the Agenda Session.

Since the Stand is ready for delivery and apparently there was a technical problem in the Resolution "OK"ing its purchase which seems to have invalidated that resolution; what is the Cities responsibility?

More important was the true cost hidden from the Council. AS Councilor Reid said “they thought they were voting on a “turnkey project. There are many questions about this project and the public should have answers. The bet is that no action will be taken.

One other resolution bit the dust. By a 3 for 2 against vote a Resolution authorizing seeking outside collection agents to recoup over $700,000.00 in unpaid Court fines and costs failed. 4 votes simple majority of Council membership is eeded for passage. The absence of 2 Councilor members at the meeting empowered a minority.

I will not comment on the argument that collection agencies (Blanked statement) harass those owing money and the two no voters did not wish to have their constituents suffer.

It matters not that these are monies charged for violations of the law and that in most cases the violator is flouting his disrespect for the law.

More tomorrow

MONDAY SUBSTITUTE

(Execution-1940 Bendor Mark)

Monday is suppose to be a blogging day this August. However, since the agenda for tonight's Council meeting has been well covered all week and there was nothing new this weekend; the above picture can be symbolic of Plainfield's governance.

Oh yes; there was Adrian Mapp's Presidential like announcement that he is a candidate for Mayor in 2013-no surprise. There may be hope, but there will have to be a drastic change in the Council.

Probably late Tuesday morning I will post some impressions of tonight's meeting.

JAMA the Journal of the American Medical Association has for decades featured a work of art on its weekly cover. Some are to say the least weird; most by artists not popularly known but so recognized by connoisseurs .

A more cheerful painting below "Fireworks on the Hudson (1976) painted by Herbert Katzman.

The explanation of the paintings follows. By clicking on them they can be enlarged to be readable.

NEED ANSWERS

My electronic copy of Monday’s agenda arrived late Friday night and I have only have had an opportunity to scan it. However as expected most of it is a duplicate of material covered after the Agenda Setting Session this week.

There is a major exception; 13 Resolutions from the “Corporation Solicitor” acting as Corporation Counsel;” which were not discussed prior to this agenda. In my interpretation of Parliamentary procedure they will have to be introduced as “new items”.

These 13 Resolutions are devoted to a list of appointments of multiple special attorneys for various duties such as (a) Workman’s Compensation Counsel  (3);(b)Litigation Defense Counsel (6)-there must be a great number of suits against the city;(c) Independent hearing office(1); (d) special defense Counsel (1);(e) Tax appeals Counsel(1);(f) Bond Counsel(1) and  an additional appropriation for $75,000.00 for David L. Minchello, Esq. !!!.

Everyone has an “amount not to exceed $5,000.00 which I wonder is a retainer and there will be additional fee for service charges. Without any contract available we are in the dark.

Mr. Minchello stipend as City Solicitor was set ‘in an amount not to exceed $75,000.00 per budget per Resolution 185-12 (May 2012). If this additional $75,000.00 is paid that will be a total of $150,000.00 this year. Not bad for a part time job.

What were Plainfield’s “legal costs” in 2011 and to date this year? How are they broken down?

Once again there is a question about the necessity of having a “full time Corporation Counsel, This and the need for the City Council to have its independent legal counsel must be addressed and I believe could be done by Ordinance.

Again there are items on the Consent Agenda that would be adopted unanimously but do not belong on that agenda since they are not routine and of a great amount of money. One is for a $717,583.00 contract with the State for the supplemental nutrition WIC program. Also the three financial resolutions related to the Bilingual Day Care Center do not belong on the Consent Agenda.

Other controversial resolutions on the agenda which have been a matter of concern for all the “Bloggers" are the Concession Stand and the additional costs for the Police Headquarters work. These three resolutions have problems which no one on the Council has received satisfactory explanations.

DAY FOUR COUNCIL REPORT

Four days after the Council agenda setting session and the three bloggers have focused on only one pair of Resolutions relating to the Joe Black field Concession Stand. In addition one other; the Police Headquarters alterations has been briefly mentioned.

Moreover only one proposed Ordinance which failed has been a subject. Yet there will be two Ordinances for second reading approving of contracts with the two Police unions and another raising the fees paid to office duty officers for private functions.

Two new Ordinances for first reading concern new contracts for the PMEA and the FMBA will be on the docket.

A third new Ordinance to be presented has to do with changes in Audit and Controls; to address repeated concerns of the City Auditors. Regrettably I have yet to read it by hope to before Monday’s meeting.

What is common in all the writings and discussions the past three days is a concern with the lack of controls in financial matters and the seeming reluctance of the Administration to adopt measures.  An example is that professional contracts that could merit awarding by RFP are still allocated by the “fair and open” favoritism route.  Building contracts seem to have been signed by division heads without the true costs being known or even transmitted to the Council.

The Council has failed by not insisting on being advised if there could be additional costs. It has failed by not following Cato the Elder’s policy of demanding at ever meeting for a report why critical posts remain unfilled.

To accept an under-chief’s comment that  an attempt to procure a CFO at a meeting that will take place almost three months from now as adequate effort to fill an inexcusable vacancy is untenable.

Back to the Agenda; the three Resolutions relating to the Plainfield Bilingual Day Care Center, of which two are for food and the third for an application and acceptance for funds from the State DOE  should question why this agency is a City Social Services Organization and if it could be run  by Non For Profit?

It should be noted that the city receives $12,300.00 per child from DOE and there are 30 children registered. This $369,000.00 is for educational purposes; why is it not a function of the BOE/PSS? Director Restaino was unprepared to answer questions relating to this institution.

The bids for Contract 4 of the 2012 re-pavement boom will b e rejected since they all came in well over estimate. There will be a slight revision of the specifics and it will be open for new bidding.

Tonight the agenda for Monday’s Council meeting will be available and I shall be able to post some remarks over the weekend.

MORE COUNCIL STUFF

There were three “Unfinished Business” items on the agenda. One, the discussion on non-renewal of liquor license I have referred to in the report on the failed Ordinance. Another, the ShotSpotter fiasco has been well covered in the past two days by both Plainfield Today (Dan Damon) and Plaintalker II (Bernice Paglia) and there is little to add at this time. 

The third item was the vacant CFO position.  I agree with Damon; this was a subject that the City Administrator should have addressed instead of bucking it down to the Director of Administration and Finance. Director Restaino remarked that there had been three interested individuals in the position. Two had experience but either their salary demands exceeded the range authorized by Plainfield’s Ordinances or had accepted another position. The third had just received “his” certification and thus was inexperienced.

The latest plan was for the Mayor and Restaino to seek candidates at the League of Municipalities meeting (date not mentioned). Several questions remain  unanswered;  how aggressive has been the search for a CFO, Is Plainfield’s salary range unrealistic, and finally; what is the function (job description) of the newly employed “City Treasurer” who is supposedly a qualified CFO?

Among the Resolution was item Z5 is for approval of a $48, 3354.00 increases in the contract award to Procom Systems Inc. to extend the demolition and construction of space  for the upgraded 9-1-1 center and CCTV command center in the basement of the Police Headquarters.  Several Councilors questioned the  amount since the space found was a very small area.

There have been on previous agendas resolutions for extra contracts for additional engineering work on this project necessitated by the “discovery” of a small empty space behind a wall in the area being converted. 

Unanswered is the mystery why this was not accounted for in the original contracts; there must have been blue prints available for study before new plans were drawn. Once again the ultimate cost has changed from that which the Council approved.

The positive about these unexpected extra costs in the CCTV Center is that this is not a prefabricated building purchased by Recreation. Yet there is a similarity in that original cost approved by the Council did not cover the entire project, it is sort of a curve ball.

For those who do not recall the  Bryant Park 2008  Taj Mahal restrooms; it was presented to the Council as a $124,000 pre-fabricated unit that would only need plumbing and electrical hookups to be operational. The final cost was  $272,432.

I will have a day or two to comment on some of the Resolutions that will be acted upon Monday.

COUNCIL NOTES CONT.

Of the other three items that failed to make it out of the starting gate two were anticipated. .

One was the monthly communication from the Mayor appointing Cecil H. Sanders Jr., Alex Toliver, Darcella Sessomes as “members” of the PMUA and Harold Mitchell the incumbent President as an alternate.    

There is no reason to reiterate why Council President Mapp justifiably refuses to place this previously rejected slate on the Agenda.

The other recommendation was for the nomination of Hattie M. Williams and Eric Graham to the Library Board of Trustees.

Councilor Storch objected to them since the Council had not been able to interview these two to determine their position on the city’s funding of the Library. The fear that they would be advocates of the Mayor’s plan for minimal City allocations seemed valid in view of the documented contribution to Rev. Brown’s campaign by Williams using HUD funds. This supposed illegal action was remedied by replacement of the money.

There was a proposed Ordinance creating a three person Alcohol Beverage Commission to replace the Council’s role as this Board which approves of the issuances of the annual licenses.

 The Council has not yet renewed  the licenses for three establishments pending review of  reported repeated infractions and other police incidents. Howeve, the Police Department had not recommended non renewal and as the Acting Corporation Counsel stated the State ABC would not uphold the Council’s action on appeal.

One of the problems is that the Council only functions in its ABC role at the annual license renewal time. The Commission would meet monthly and get all concurrent reports. Thus it would be in a better position to act on problem venues.

When it was suggested that the Council meet monthly or bi-monthly to negate that complaint one of the members objected saying that the extra meetings would be an imposition on its personal time.

Councilor Williams strongly objected to that attitude. She noted that she attended all Council and sub-committee meetings as part of the obligation inherent in the position as Councilor. (Bravo). She also noted that the Council has cut its burden from 4 meetings a month to 2.

The present majority of the Council does not appear willing to surrender more of its authority to the Mayor considering the state of existent appointments to all the other various Boards, Authorities and Commissions.

It appears s that this Council will try to work something out so that it still has control over the licenses.

Once again one of the major flaws in the Charter has reared its ugly head; the fact that the Corporation Counsel a Mayor’s appointee, also acts in a legal capacity for the Council.