Controversy over a city payment to radio station WBLS for an Aug. 1, 2010 Town Meeting surfaced at Monday's City Council meeting with a mayoral request for legal representation.Those who filed OPRA requests last year for details on overall costs and authorizations for the event were told to hold off for a council investigation, but Jacqueline Drakeford, the attorney selected by the council, declined the assignment after questions arose over her past affiliation with the city as its corporation counsel. The year elapsed with no further action and in the opinion of close council watcher Dr. Harold Yood, the matter would have to be taken up anew this year.
The council has investigative powers under the city's special Charter, but nothing new has been announced for 2011 nor has the council engaged another attorney. So the request of Mayor Sharon Robinson-Briggs for her own legal representation raised questions Monday.
The request was to hire attorney Steven Edelstein at a cost not to exceed $6,000. Edelstein represented the mayor in a 2006 residency challenge, which she won.
Council president Annie McWilliams noted the matter was not going to court, so asked why the mayor needed a lawyer. After Acting City Administrator Dan Williamson explained that both sides in the matter are allowed to have representation, Councilman Adrian Mapp also questioned the need to have an attorney "just in case" of a lawsuit.
But Williamson supported such a request "if there's a cloud over you for any reason."
Councilman William Reid said since Drakeford withdrew, nothing has been heard about an investigation of what he called "this $5,000 expenditure." Although the city check to WBLS was for $20,000, the mayor has alleged that an unnamed individual gave $15,000 toward the cost. The check was drawn against the city's account for "hardware and software maintenance."
Reid said unless the council declared, "Ms. Mayor, we are going to investigate your butt," the matter should be dropped as it was "not so important."
McWilliams said the Charter permits a council investigation and said an attorney for the governing body would be representing the city's interest. Hiring one for the mayor would be "very different," she said.
After more discussion about whether or not an investigation was looming or whether one was warranted, Acting Corporation Counsel James Ventantonio noted there is a conflict because under the charter, the corporation counsel is supposed to represent both the administration and governing body. The mayor should have someone on her side, he said.
But the request failed to gain a consensus of four out of seven council members to put the matter on the March 14 agenda, so there will be no vote on it. The meeting is 8 p.m. Monday in Municipal Court, 325 Watchung Ave.
--Bernice Paglia
‘Reid said unless the council declared, "Ms. Mayor, we are going to investigate your butt," the matter should be dropped as it was "not so important.’
ReplyDeleteCouncilman Reid is either clueless or has no respect for the ‘rule of law’. Whether it’s a dollar, $5,000 or $20,000, the council has as a fiduciary responsibility to see that no funds were misappropriated, no laws were broken, else, they put themselves in a position of being personally liable. These things are important.
As one Senator once said: ‘A billion here. A billion there and soon you will be talking real money.’
The bigger question is -- if the mayor felt it was fine to take money from the IT budget for something non-related .. what other funds have been shuffled around?
ReplyDeleteWe know there haven't been the appropriate controls in place for a long time.
Is this just the tip of the iceberg? What other funds has the mayor played with?
Plainfield has too many crooks. From the PMUA to the Mayor. They think they can smooth talk their way and have "reimbursements" by outside entities to make it right. This is criminal. This is obviously not "hardware and software." This is nothing more than an effort to conceal an inappropriate purchase.
ReplyDeleteto answer Nat's question: Reid is clueless.
ReplyDeleteHe thinks there is no problem with the Mayor "TAKING" $20,000 ??? It's NOT HER MONEY to use, borrow, replace, shuffle or otherwise play with. Could Reid really try and at least attempt to show that he is not fully in Jerry and Sharon's right pocket ?? Get a little self respect Reid because you don't have it from anyone in Plainfield.
Whether someone repaid all $20,000, $19,999.99 or $15,000 is irrelevant - IT'S NOT HER MONEY TO DO WITH AS SHE PLEASES.
Where is the deposit slip for the $15,000 payback, who authorized the original check being cut for $20,000....
She used taxpayer money in an inappropriate manner. It needs to be check start to finish with all the facts laid out for the public to see.
She can pay for her own attorney.
Individuals like Mr. Reid and Ms. Robinson-Briggs believe that the residents of Plainfield don't know any better. They think they can say and do as they please because their friends, who voted them into office, trust them.
ReplyDeleteSURPRISE FRIENDS! You're getting ripped off left and right, up and down and everywhere in between; because they don't really care about you or our City, they care about themselves.
Are you or the City of Plainfield better off than you were a few years ago, prior to these individuals holding office? If the answer is no, then your friends are not doing their job.
I've been to enough Council meetings to be able to observe that Mr. Reid continually plays down any alleged wrong doings by the Mayor or her administration.
The least you could do, Mr. Reid, is refrain from commenting on the situation or present an impartial point of view. That's what a good politician does.
I love a good farce, but this show must come to an end, for all our sakes!
Mr. Reid often doesn not have Plainfield's interset at heart, but is part of the Democrat machine in Plainfield and would support the mayor even if she stole $100,000 from the city. I hope the City Council will press ahead, as Shady Sharon needs to learn that she cannot use the city and it's tax payers for her pleasure.
ReplyDeleteTake the "it's only $5,000.00" at face value. First off, that's still third degree theft and a felony, no? Secondly, has anyone actually documented the "return" of $15,000? Thirdly, who "contributed" the money? With what conditions? And if they were so generous why do they remain anonymous?
ReplyDeleteAnd even if there was no money issue involved what was the outcome of the Sharon-a-thon? Is Plainfield safer? More respected in the state? Do we have better morale in the PD? Did we get any additional funding? Did any of the participants leave behind a workable plan for lowering crime? Who would know?
Do you want to know why no one knows? Because Sharon's like a mediocre event planner who throws a party (with someone else's money) but doesn't really have a plan so she has no way of using the party to achieve a goal. The goal of the party was the party itself. What happens when you're not clear on your goals?
Nothing.
If a donation is made to a City, am I wrong in seeing this is presented to the Mauor and City Council for approval of acceptance?
ReplyDeleteI though I had seen this somewhere once before when a donation is made but not 100% sure.
Despite all the well-documented failings of the Mayor, she is entitled to legal representation if she is being investigated by the Council.
ReplyDeleteTo 1:54pm - That's the point! She is spending our money, but at this point she is not being investigated.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the local chapter of the NFBPA or the church that owns the cemetery on Plainfield Ave. It really doesn't matter who, if anyone, "paid" the money back. That's like someone robbing the bank and after they are caught stating that the money wasn't spent or will be returned. This is CRIMINAL. Write the AG. She has started to tackle issues like this. This type of corruption has been plaguing Plainfield for years.
ReplyDelete