Thank heavens City Council President Annie McWilliams has posted her overview of Monday's meeting. I heard the acronym "FAIR," but didn't catch all of the statement she read. Her new post sums up how Monday's actions relate to the FAIR (Fiscal Accountability, Integrity and Responsibility) Legislation Package.
Read her post here.
The meeting was turbulent and hard to follow even for an old hand (albeit one impaired by the ongoing heat wave and then the unaccustomed chill in Municipal Court). I had to rewrite my post three times. So I am grateful to Annie for spelling it all out and giving residents a framework for understanding crucial fiscal decisions in the near future.
The council expects to hold a special meeting on July 28, at which action may be taken to fill the posts of chief municipal finance officer and director of the Department of Administration, Finance, Health & Social Services. The administration is to bring forth its candidates and the council anticipates interviewing them before possibly giving advice and consent to their appointments.
Plaintalker is hoping to report that the candidates are well-qualified and ready to take charge of their respective fiscal roles. Although there is a provision in state law to name a temporary CFO who then has two years to get certified, this writer is hoping that will not be the scenario offered.
The city needs a fully qualified CFO to guide the city during what is shaping up to be an extremely difficult budget process, one that will require the highest expertise.
Monday's revelations of two candidates in the wings are only the hint of a solution to the city's fiscal woes. Corporation Counsel Dan Williamson said Monday he called the state Division of Local Government Services with the "tantalizing info" that the city had a CFO candidate. This on the eve of a third deadline since October 2009 to come up with one. Adding intrigue to the situation, the acting DLGS director with whom Williamson had been in talks had just gone out on a two-month leave and the city's personnel director was out on jury duty.
It remains to be seen whether the proposed CFO is certified and the proposed finance director is willing to step in to a messy situation. Will the fiscal maelstrom subside into calm waters? We all have to wait and see.
--Bernice
Read Annie's Blog and just to post here - I posted the following concerning Council review of all bills prior to payment.
ReplyDeleteI can understand why Council wants to see bills prior to payment and although I did not see the wording of the Resolution, there nees to be specific guidelines for this review, such as a specific limit. Is it really necessay to see bills where there is already an approoval by Council as with maintenance contracts? If Council already approved an annual maintenace contract, why would you have to see the monthly bill. Given the specific times when Audit & Control pays vendors, this additional review could set back the actual payment by 2 weeks to a month.
There are additional areas where a review is not necessary as in the case of utilities. Do you really need to see the payment of PSE&G bills? What are you going to do - say it is too high and not approve the payment? Any bills submitted to Council will have to be paid regardless of the amount.
I feel a review of a vendor payment report would suffice and should be submitted to the Finance Committe, and, if there are any questions, or items that warrant review, to seek that information from the Administration. To review bills prior to payment is only going to cause vendors to not do business with the City becuase it would take too long to be paid or result in additional fees as most invoices are due withing 30 days and will result in late fees.
Council needs to have a better understanding of the existing process which already takes too long for a vendor to be paid and adding to that delay, especially during the summer months when Council only meets once a month is only going to cause the accounts payable staff and Division Heads are going to be spending a lot of time on the telephone with Vendors looking for payment.
I can't believe that people believe that this mayor, who has lied to us so many times, even has candidates in mind. Her stalling action of not bringing the resumes or names forth shows that she is stalling and shiftier than a snake on hot sand. I hope the Council stays on her and we get results.
ReplyDeleteHow much are we paying this mayor to not do her job? Maybe she needs a sharp pay cut.
I disagree with 9:54pm. Yes, the council should see the PSE&G bills, and yes they should say they are too high if it appears that way. Do you pay all your bills without reviewing them?
ReplyDeleteWhat is there is a sharp spike in the water bill? Could it be that there may be leaks that cause money to be spent foolishly? Will the person at city hall paying the bill notice and bring it to the administrations's attention?
What if the contract money is being spent faster than the allocted time period? The contractor comes back and asks for more money. Shouldn't someone be looking at the burn rate of the contract to make sure it is on track?
I think this is a much needed, and overdue action.
Here is my confusion with the administration. We all know there is tension between the council and the administration. What was the reason that someone from the administration did not pick up the phone and call Annie to tell her what was going on? I am sure the administration knew by close of business on Monday that both positions had candidates. Why not work in tandem with the council and let them know? That, quite frankly, is the professional thing to do.
ReplyDeleteThis action by the administration demonstrates their lack of understanding of how business works and how to work as a team. Too bad, because that is why we will remain in this stand off. People not knowing how to act professionally and as adults. Sigh, I hope these three years go really, really, really fast.
And what would the Council do if the PSEG bill was too high one month? Pass a resolution making it smaller? Appoint a utilities oversight committee? Start yet another war of resolutions with the administration, urging them to watch the meters more carefully? Urge them to fire yet another administrative casualty?
ReplyDeleteThe FAIR proposals want it both ways: the council wants the administration to continue the daily grind of running the city but they want to ensure that there are no surprise expenditures like the senior Center or the Tepper's basement to nowhere. Fine. But the current proposals seem to take on too much responsibility for the limited time and resources of the council and to cross the legislative/executive divide.
Looking at past bills to determine a budget is a legitimate function of the council. Looking at current bills is a waste of their time and I believe outside of their charter.
So if Council wants to review the bills before payments are made, what do we need Department Heads for. All bills are reviewed by a Division's Department Head for approval of payment. In fact, a request to expend City Funds is approved by a Department Head through the Purchase Order Process. Is Coucil saying that the Department Heads which they approve to be hired are not capable of monitoring the payment of bills?
ReplyDeleteAnd is Council capable of contolling the city's payments when it didn't do anything about the Mayor's expenses for food give-a-ways. Oh wait, some of those expenses were for catering services for their dinner before Agenda Sessions and Council Meetings.
Let's see how much they control expenditures with the League of Municipalities Convention coming up and what the tab is for that.
Nice to see city employees posting on this blog. There is no plausible explanation for flowers, retirement luncheons, and expensive gifts on the public dime. 9:45 and 12:38 need to get a clue. If you don't mind those hefty expenses then let them take it directly out of your pocket. Hey Ms. Mayor - Stop stealing it from my taxes.
ReplyDeleteTo 1:54
ReplyDeleteIt's not that I don't mind those hefty expenses which are legitimate and needed expenses - it's just that under Plainfield's form of governement, reviewing bills prior to payment is just a waste of time and effort.
In preparing a budget, each Division submits a budget and justifications for the requested expenditures. As a very simple example, let's say there is a budget request to purchase $1,200 in toilet paper. Council reviews the budget and finds the expenses justified based on previous years expenditures. So walla! That is the first approval.
Then the Division prepares an annual encumberance purchase order to the vendor in the amount of $1,200 to be expended at the rate of $100 per month. There is no actual bill yet so no review by Council is necessary.
The each month the Division gets a bill for $100 and prepares the voucher for payment which will now be approved 12 times in a year by a Department Head and 12 times a year by City Council.
Now if that is not a waste of time, I don't know what is.
Why does the City have a budget process, then find it necessary to double check their work. As long as expenses fall within the budget, there should be no need for a duplicate administrative review. If an expenses is not budgeted, or exceeds the amount approved by Council, then I could understand why Council would review a purchase - Not a bill, but a purchase.
Once a purchase is made, there is very little Council could do about the expenditure except harm the vendor in delaying payment. If council feels it needs more financial control then it should approve purchases, not payments.
And if it needs to approve purchases, then why does the City need a Purchasing Supervisor?
Unless you are familiar with the City's purchasing process, you won't understand why reviewing payments is just plain stupid.
To anon @ 9:52am.
ReplyDeleteFinancial oversight is the Council's most important responsibility. The ability of the Council to review bills is actually already in our code books, although the bills have rarely been presented to the Council as required.
This ordinance will require the Administration to present bills to us in advance. If we recognize a pattern of bills that seem too high or without valid explanation, we can bring attention to the matter in advance of payment. The intent is not to hold up any payments, least of all payments that are fair, valid, contractual or expected. Also, please be aware that most NJ municipalities function on a once-monthly payment schedule. I see no reason that Plainfield should not be expected to work at the same standard. It may take time for the Administration to adjust to a new payment schedule, and we will be lenient and understanding with that, but it must be done.
The move toward transparent, professional government is not easy but it is necessary.
Thanks,
Annie