Wednesday, April 13, 2011

WBLS Costs: Just the Facts, Please

Plaintalker's OPRA request on the Aug. 1, 2010 WBLS "town meeting" turned up not only proof of a $20,000 check for that event, but also $2,500 paid for a "street team" appearance on July 2, 2010 and another $2,500 for a "van appearance" in the July 3 parade (yes, folks, the July 4 parade was on July 3).

On Monday, speakers including the mayor characterized the $20,000 cost as really being just $5,700. First, mayoral advocate Roland Muhammad said so, then the mayor repeated the amount. Later, she said it was actually $5,791. There was a $15,000 donation that reduced the actual cost, the mayor said.

The point of repeating the $5,700 or so was to criticize the hiring of an attorney to investigate the process whereby the money was spent.

Plaintalker does not have a scanner, but according to the document pictured above, the first $2,500 came from "General Imp (sic) Ordinance 1237." The second $2,500 was chalked up to an account for "Outside Consulting Services." The $25,000 came, as Plaintalker has previously noted, from an account for "Hardware & Software Maintenance."

On the surface, it certainly looks like a bit of creative accounting. But then there was the donation to offset the Aug. 1 costs. The mayor was asked who donated the money, but did not identify a donor. After the meeting, this writer asked Corporation Counsel Dan Williamson how such donations are handled in the budget. The answer was they would go into the general fund. As I recall, Williamson was not able to say whether such a check would be specifically listed as an item of revenue.

Among other zingers tossed out about the impending investigation, Councilman William Reid speculated that the term "initial" in the resolution to hire the attorney meant there would be further costs. Reid said the attorney would have subpoena powers, but questioned the possibility of further expense if former city administrator Bibi Taylor or the mayor refused to respond.

"We need to investigate and get it out of the way," Reid said, "but let's do it right."

He did not explain what the right way would be.

Councilwoman Vera Greaves asked whether the mayor would also get an attorney , but Council President Annie McWilliams said the mayor had her own account and could decide how to spend her funds.

"But it's still the taxpayers' money," Reid said.

In other objections to the proposed investigation, Muhammad alluded to money spent on "piping" that was bought but not used and expenses for a "friendship train" on which participants "got drunk." Reid talked about a visioning study authorized by the council at a cost of $80,000, with an additional $16,000 approved later, characterizing both as "giving our money away."

Cryptic kitchen-sink arguments notwithstanding, the council voted 4-2 to hire attorney Ramon Rivera for what McWilliams characterized as "a first look to fact-find and fact-check."

McWilliams, Adrian Mapp, Cory Storch and Rebecca Williams voted "yes" and Reid and Greaves voted "no." Bridget Rivers was absent.

Plaintalker's OPRA request came about after a commenter on the blog challenged me to find out how much the event cost. I answered that the commenter could just as well file an OPRA request, but mine would include the following:

COST OF AUG. 1 TOWN MEETING, including school rental, speakers’ honorariums or fees, security, setup, including WBLS requirements, cost of videographing, food and supplies, plus any other incidentals

That was my request on Aug. 2. Several weeks later, I received a partial response which included documentation of the WBLS checks and accounts from which they were paid. The whys and wherefores, as well as any other possible expenses, remain to be explained.

--Bernice Paglia

7 comments:

  1. It's a shame the mayor won't answer the simple question and come clean on this. Why is she wasting our time and money?

    What is she trying to hide about her 'deal-making' that is so important it's secrecy must be maintained until revealed at the 11th hour at great expense?

    Has she nothing better in mind to do? Can she not think of a better way that public money should be spent? Will pride goeth before the fall?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh Boy! Gotta love all those supporters of the Mayor, who don't necessarily understand the difference between accountability and making an investment in the future of our City.

    Sometimes it just seems that this is what's going through their minds:

    "Don't investigate and don't spend money on developing our city which will eventually help everyone in the community; just give us tax payer money for our recreation department and our social services, because you know we've hard a hard life and we're entitled and we deserve it and we're poor and you're all rich and you don't know what we go through. . . blah blah blah blah blah!

    And this is what goes through my mind and many others in this City:

    GET OVER IT! GET REAL! AND MOVE ON!

    ReplyDelete
  3. We can glean that our mayor is not totally honest, the usual, and that she is covering up something that she doesn't want us to know about. I sounds like we paid, at least in part, for some free publicity and campaigning for our mayor. He backers, I really want to use a less neutral word, need to be aware that most of us know what they are doing and don't believe their contorted hype. I wonder if they took lessons from the other party or just from Jerry. Either way, the mayor and her friends are not serving anyone but themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mr. Reid, Here is what is giving away the taxpayers money -

    1- Taxpayers paying for Bilingual day care at an expense of @$250,000 plus when we have free day care available in this city without the use of taxpayer money

    2 - We have a rec department receiving $800,000 per year and serving 600 kids and no adults

    3- We have a police department where about 10% of the police are either suspended or out on leave. But we are still paying for them.

    4 - We have police making 98K making overtime sitting on the 911 desk instead of being out on the street

    5- Purchasing is still doing their transactions with pen and paper, as are most other areas in city hall (money out the window - thank goodness for AJ)

    Mr. Reid, every vote that you have cast has given away taxpayer money.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Who's poor and who's rich 11:35 AM. Do tell.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anon 2:43 PM - in response to your question:

    Who's poor? - Those among us with no sense of obligation or duty who make themselves the everlasting victims. They choose to use and abuse the system and "milk" it for all they can, because they deem themselves to be entitled on all levels.

    They believe that the government is responsible for providing them with those things which others, who are financially fortunate, have to pay for with their hard earned money.

    Who's rich? - Those among us, not necessarily endowed with financial wealth, rather with basic self-pride and self-respect. Those of us who make it our personal responsibility to provide for ourselves and our families without relying on the government to provide it for us.

    Of course, there are members of our society who will always need a helping hand because of circumstances beyond their control; and those who will need assistance in a moment of transition, getting them through a rough patch in life; and then there are those that will alway choose to take and never give, forever perpetuating the vicious cycle social welfare.

    I hope I've answered your question.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dear keeping it real,
    I am in agreement with you, because I see the effects of this in my area...But as a person with 50years on this earth...and have been forced to retire due to (9-11)...I hope that your message does not get misunderstood...but this is plainfield so get ready to get the label of sell out hahahaha
    KEEP IT REAL...KEEPING IT REAL!!!

    ReplyDelete