Amidst the hype and hyperbole of Monday's meeting, one fact may have been lost: Any allocations for the Recreation or Purchasing divisions or other parts of government at this time will be charged against the FY 2012 budget (the one already projected to have a $3.5 million shortfall).The FY 2011 budget process was over with in December, with final budget passage. The City Council held open budget deliberations and hearings that anyone could have attended and that were also televised. The ramifications of budget decisions - possible layoffs - were clear.
Given all that, two different things are going on here. The Recreation Division issues started rumbling many months ago, when a volunteer-run baseball league began complaining about treatment at the hands of city Recreation management. To compound the friction, the Recreation Division began its own league at lower cost to parents, although commenters have alleged the start-up cost to taxpayers was as much or more than the amount now lacking to avoid layoffs. A committee formed in part to help settle the dispute found itself stonewalled by Rec management and led to the concept of a Recreation Commission.
To someone versed in public administration, some of this may have seemed like the long way around to settling a management issue, i.e., put it to the manager to resolve it or get a new manager.
Instead, the drama began taking on a cast of hundreds - parents, children staying up late at council meetings, top city cabinet members embroiled in who would turn the lights on and off at city ball fields, elected officials and a throng of supporters for Dave Wynn. It was from this last faction that the governing body heard insults and platitudes Monday night. One person dragged out the old chestnut, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," but surely any issue that has caused such dissension since late 2009 reflects a brokenness that needs to be fixed.
The Purchasing Division issue is different in that it involves not just staff, but a new cabinet member whose professional opinion of the city's finances is vital to future operations. For three years, nobody has been providing the oversight that a chief finance officer brings to a municipality. This position is so important that it is mandated by the state. The person now in place has to correct past lapses while building a sound basis for the future. The City Council acknowledged this by attempting to keep on Purchasing staff at his behest.
The $33,000 in question to keep Purchasing at full strength at least until the end of the fiscal year was on the table Monday, but its conflation with the Recreation issue appears to have doomed it for the moment. There may yet be a special meeting at which these funding issues will be taken up again.
The real problem here is that the mayor also wants to add on a few other positions for salvation, as she keeps reminding the council. It is not $58,000 that is lacking, but more like $137,000. Two of these positions are for former legislative aides to Jerry Green who came to City Hall when the mayor did. The state Civil Service Commission, which approves layoff plans and outlines "bumping" rights, apparently did not get the memo that these two jobs - one in the mayor's office, one in the Police Division - were off bounds. There are a couple more that the mayor and others would like to add to the list.
Even though a special meeting and approval of funding for only some operations may not suit everyone, it is still an extraordinary step to re-do budget decisions after the fact and should not become the "new normal," as the latest buzzwords have it. The work of putting together a budget for FY 2012 should be done carefully, with maximum citizen input at the appropriate time. It is, by all accounts, going to be a daunting task with some unhappy outcomes. A look around at the larger world will tell us that not all jobs can be saved in this economy and none are guaranteed to individuals, no matter how well they may be connected.
Whatever the council decides in the next couple of weeks, let it be final. It is time to take on the challenges of FY 2012, not to continue rehashing the past for the sake of a favored few.
--Bernice
Wheather is 2012 or 2011 - or 2013 does not matter. What matters is what is right for the people of Plainfield and the children of Plainfield.
ReplyDeleteWeather it is the Mayor or ANY Council member - it does not matter. What matters is what is right for our children.
Clearly from your writing you are favoring the Council on this and your bias shows up loudly.
Think abou this: How many Councilmembers who voted against this have children in the system? How many Councilmembers who are opposed to this have children served by the Recreation system?
You want to know the answer? I will tell you -NONE!
There is a huge disconnect here.
The government here is oblivious and indiffernt to the needs of the people who are not like them.
Just like in the Middle East.
First of all, I think most if not all patronage jobs need to go, unless that person has be extremely outstanding in their position. Second, Sharon must go and someone competent put in her place. I think most of us would agree that Sharon has been one of the most incompetent mayors we've had in many, many years. At least the 30+ years I've lived here.
ReplyDeleteThis City faces some very serious problems and the leadership does not have any serious answers or remedies, other than spending more money.
ReplyDeleteI'm continually baffled by those in the leadership that consistently choose to pursue their self-interests and their personal agendas; and even more amazed by the residents that support them through praise and votes.
That's why this City is in a hole, ladies and gentleman. This is not a socialist or communist state. The government is not responsible for solving our problems.
This City cannot afford to keep providing social services on the tax payers dime and catering to every individual that believes themself to be entitled, for whatever reason.
I genuinely believe that the majority of Plainfield residents share many of the same basic values and desires for this community; but how can we move forward in a positive and productive manner, when when we don't have appropriate role models in leadership positions to guide us accordingly.
To 10:44am - Does Dave Wynn have any children in the system? Are you just as upset that there are members of the BOE who sent their children to private school? Is reaching less than 600 children, of more than 6,000 children OK especially when everyone agrees that children on the street is an issue?
ReplyDeleteAnd I agree with you that government here is oblivious and indiffernt to the needs of the people who are not like them. Name one person who thinks that C-Town is a great example of economic development?
I do believe there are two very different perspectives in this city. It drives the debate. It showed up Monday night. There is a lack of civility that rears its head from both camps from time to time. Solutions, they all start and end with respect for the opposition. Without mutual respect nothing happens... things get worse and people who have the wherewithal to move... do just that.
ReplyDeleteDemonizing people you disagree with doesn't illustrate your intelligence at all, it simply appeals to the mob, the FOX News types who base what they know on what somebody else told them. Don't tell us what's wrong with the city. Tell us how you're going to fix it. If nothing else, it's a lot more interesting to listen to.
Thanks Bernice for letting me post to your blog.
Removing obstructionist who have no interest in working with others is the way to begin to find a solution to this matter and others.
ReplyDeleteThere are 2 people who won't work with other per recreation in the city of Plainfield.
Dave Wynn and Sharon Robinson-Briggs. There idea of "working with others" is holding their breath and stomping their feet. Workng with children does not entitle you to act like one.
Sharon Robinson-Blame can try and spin this any way she likes, she and Dave either worked with the other group last year or not.
The answer was they did not. They showed their true colors then. Their idea of the council working with them is for the council to do what they want. Sorry, that's not working with others. The council invited dialog and tried fixing the situation, the Mayor and Dave did not. That's what everyone needs to remember when lamenting that "can't we all just get along"...2 people have no interest in it.
I was there Monday evening . . . or should I say, "I witnessed Monday evening's Council Meeting" and I realized in order to get through this horrific evening of endless unwarranted insults flung at councilpersons:
ReplyDeleteAnnie McWilliams (Annie your Dad strengthens you),
Adrian Mapp (their refusal to know you allows them to believe in lies),
Cory Storch (no need to answer inanity) and
Rebecca Williams (are you ready to forgive those who voted you in)
and the other half of council showing their thick Jerry Green puppet strings:
Vera Greaves (you were for it before you were against it . . . or were you against it before you were for it - or . . . you haven’t a clue because you just misunderstood Jerry Green's orders the first time?),
Bridget Rivers (Congratulations you brought "street" to the council and by the way –what did Jerry Green promise you?) and
Bill Reid (you are so far up Jerry Green's butt -you need a bullhorn to call you out)
along with the seemingly never-ending delusional praising of:
a man (Dave Wynn- an ineffective Superintendent of Recreation) and
a woman (Sharon RobinsonBriggs a sorry excuse for a mayor)
I had to imagine I was watching a mob scene on Reality Television and think . . .
“This can’t be for real.”