The authority has been operating for many months with several holdovers on its board of five commissioners and two alternates. Eke was among three people interviewed by the council at the Jan. 10 council meeting. On Jan. 24, The Rev. Tracey Brown, an incumbent, was returned to the board, while Cecil Sanders and Eke were both rejected in 4-3 votes. Council members Vera Greaves, William Reid and Bridget Rivers voted "yes," while Rebecca Williams, Adrian Mapp, Cory Storch and Council President Annie McWilliams voted "no."
On Monday, Eke read a prepared speech in which he attacked the "New Democrats" and characterized the vote as "very shameful." He labeled individual council members as "obstructionist," "self-centered," "immature" and "unfit for public office." In addition, he alleged that the New Democrats held a caucus before the meeting, something McWilliams emphatically denied.
"It is illegal for council members to caucus," she said. "There was no caucus meeting."
Among other comments, Eke said, "I call on the city to rise and take back the city," alleged a "conspiracy" and said the four who voted against his nomination had their "own agenda."
The targeted council members took exception to the personal attacks, but Mayor Sharon Robinson-Briggs said she had heard talk about "discrimination." She said some candidates for boards and commissions were interviewed in closed session on Jan. 10 before the public meeting began, while "others had to wait for hours."
McWilliams said due to residents' complaints about the length of council meetings, some interviews were done in the earlier closed session. To make it look like a conspiracy was "uncalled for," she said.
As the mayor then cited phone calls she received about the Jan. 24 meeting and said people were yelling for McWilliams to let the mayor speak, McWilliams ended up calling the exchanges "symptomatic of everything that is wrong with politics in this city."
Among other issues, Eke cited his service on the Planning Board as a qualification, but Mapp and Williams made a distinction between various kinds of service. Eke asked what kind of "skill set" the council members wanted, and Robinson-Briggs said later, "Please tell us exactly the criteria you want."
Despite the perceived standoff, Reid, a former PMUA commissioner who has been especially concerned about the vacancies on the board, urged the mayor, "Please, please get some names back to us."
--Bernice Paglia
The mayor, in my opinion, is the most disgraceful part of this administration. She is supposed to lead and galvanize the city. Instead, she fuels the fire and makes no attempt to show true leadership and diplomacy in times that call for cooler heads.
ReplyDeleteHow many people called for the mayor to let her speak, because I can assure her, that for every call she received to let her speak, there are two calls that want her not only to remain silent, but to relinquish her seat and get out of Plainfield.
I was not at this meeting, but from reading this article it sounds like Mr. Eke believed his "candidacy" and appointment to the PMUA Board would be as good as gold. Perhaps Mr. Eke suffers from "Entitlement Syndrome" - - believing himself to be the ideal and perfect candidate, afterall he has served the City before - - NOT!
ReplyDeleteI don't know Mr. Eke, but from his actions at the Council meeting, alone, it is obvious why he should not be a Commissioner on any Board or hold any type of leadership position. It sounds like his ego gets in the way -- lashing out at Council members for not voting in favor of him, instead of just walking away with grace and dignity.
When someone doesn't want you, it's quite pitiful to beg.
It is the Council's perogative to vote NO. That's why it's a vote and not an appointment.
I'm sorry that Mr. Eke won't be receiving his stipend and due benefits as a Commissioner; perhaps a few trips and bragging rights that he sits on a board of sorts.
The Council members that voted for and against him were put in place by the residents of Plainfield and that is who THEY represent, not the special interests of the administration or any other faction of this municipal government.
Perhaps the Council members that voted NO, truly believe he did not qualify for the position and they actually have the best interest of the City in mind; and they're seeking an individual who will serve the people and not themselves or their egos.
As for Ms. Robinson-Briggs adding to the discussion by inciting the word "discrimination" - - well, that's just negative, unproductive and destructive language that creates more hostility.
By the Grace of God people will realize what this woman is up to and not vote for her again once her present term has ended.
Mr. Eke is right, (to paraphrase his quote at the meeting) it's time that the people rise up and take back their City -- take back the City away from those who are self-serving, greedy and shameless about their actions.
Keep up the good work Council! Keep weeding them out. It's the only way this City will move forward.
PMUA is overweight and lives beyond its means and the means of Plainfield to support its lifestyle. It should be merged back with public works to enable a more efficient use of human assets and greater transparency of costs and expenditures, without the need for the complexity of InterLocal and Deficiency Agreements, shared-services, annual charges, and the like.
ReplyDeletePMUA was conjured up like a cow and has been milked by a bevy of engineers, attorneys, auditors, and politicians ever since. Whether it is disbanded or simply gets sent to reform school, it will require commissioners who see the authority as the public getting its garbage and sewage up and out, instead of as some gilded and moated castle on the hill.
And a note to the current set of commissioners; don't fall for those preaching the virtues of grant writing, because they might only be looking for their own nipple to latch on to. But of course that might be what PMUA is all about, not garbage in and garbage out.
Anon-9:03AM -- obviously NOT--she was "RE"-elected!
ReplyDeleteThere is and will be a lot of conversation about who is right and who is wrong. I agree with Robert - 9:49.
ReplyDeleteWe are truly lacking in the grace and dignity that is required of all who wish to achieve or participate in public office. Plainfield is becoming the laughing stock of the County. Please let's have more civility!
Mr. Eke is exactly what is needed on the PMUA commissioners list. Glad the council saw right through him and voted NO.
ReplyDeleteMr. Eke - you were only nominated and not appointed. For year's a nomination such as yours was a definite. No longer will that be the case. The 49,000+ residents deserve a more efficient PMUA. If you are so interested in serving start going to a PMUA meeting or two and volunteer your time.
Councilwoman McWilliams pointed out was that Acting City Administrator Williamson and the Mayor herself chose to go with some of the interviews in executive session instead of having them spread out so they could be part of the public meeting. So why is the Mayor now acting like she didn't want this. I agree with 9:03 am, the Mayor is trying to fuel some kind of fire. Williamson sat there and said nothing even though he knows the truth. The public will know the truth as well when the agenda meeting airs. They will see who the real obstructionist is, it is the Mayor.
ReplyDeleteThe function of a Commissioner requires the exercise of prudence, judgment, and forethought.
ReplyDeleteI do not know Mr. Eke and I did not attend the Council meeting. However, if the description of his comments and demeanor are objectively correct, then it appears that the City Council member who voted "no" were prescient in their conclusions.
As for those who voted “yes”, the residents of Plainfield still await the day when you will put our interests ahead of yours.
Remember fellow Plainfielders, transparency is a wonderful antiseptic for corruption and waste. The PMUA will soon be cleansed.
Excellent blog Bernice! This truly shows what has been worng with Plainfield for years. Those who have served (themselves) in the past believe they are entitled to move from seat to seat for the rest of their lives. They intimate that anyone who doesn't feel that way is either a racist or rich and unconcerend with the "whole city". That is just ridiculous! What has been so encouraging is that people of all creeds and socio economic status are rising up to say NO MORE! When that happens they cannot use their old excuses. Does anyone recall Don Davis' slogan for his run for City Council? "We must hold on to Plainfield." If this City were doing really well, we would let you hold on, but since it isn't you must let it go. Anyone with integrity should realize that holding on to Plainfield for your own benefit is disgraceful. Give others with new ideas a chance and see if it makes things better for all and not just a select few!
ReplyDeleteTo 11:15am, please do not confuse being re-elected with popularity. Her re-election was by less than 20% of the elegible voters. That means that approximately 80% of the people of Plainfield could care less about her, her election or Planfield. That is the sad truth.
ReplyDeleteSharon needs to go and no one at this point trusts her or wants her in office any more. I'm glad some people on the City Council stood up to the old boy network and used some ethics in making their decision. Sharon has not morals and her mentor, Jerry, also is lacking in that area. Why does Shady Sharon think anyone cares what she says anymore. Good bye, Sharon!
ReplyDeleteI remember that Don Davis slogan and I thought the same thing.
ReplyDeleteAnon 2:28, I'm not confused. Just stating the facts. Doesn't matter if it where 2% she got what she needed to win the darn thing. That is the point,winning it. If anything the 80% (as you say) should be kicking themselves for abducating their responsibilities.
ReplyDelete