A small notice in this morning's Courier News plus an email with the same text confirm that the long-awaited face-to-face meeting between the governing body and at least a quorum of the PMUA board is imminent:
PLAINFIELD MUNICIPAL
UTILITIES AUTHORITY
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING WITH
PLAINFIELD CITY COUNCIL
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Commissioners of the Plainfield Municipal
Utilities Authority have been asked to attend, and a quorum of such
Commissioners are expected to attend, the Agenda Fixing Session
Meeting of the Plainfield City Council scheduled for Monday, February
6, 2012 at: 7:30 p.m. at 515 Watchung Avenue, Plainfield, New Jersey.
Consequently, Notice of this Public Meeting is being provided to the
public in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act.
Dated: January 27, 2012
Duane D. Young, Executive Director 1/31/2012
The agenda for the Monday meeting is usually available online over the weekend. The bloggerati (blogarazzi?) will no doubt let the public know of any interesting items on the agenda, but the PMUA visit alone is enough to demand close attention.
--Bernice
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'll be there. I want to hear what the council intends to do about the lucrative payouts to the former executives who resigned.
ReplyDeleteIt is hoped that the Council will provide the PMUA with an agenda beforehand so they can not wheedle out of replies during this important meeting. The suggested topics are:
ReplyDelete1. Identify the basis of the claim attendant to the "Handout" and the reason the 3 Commissioners approved the settlement. (Because the Commissioners thought it in the public interest is not an appropriate response ).
2. If the basis relates to psychological stress why the matter was not rejected and referred to the appropriate venue which is Workman Compensation?
3. If the award was warranted how did the Commissioners permit the situation the degenerate to the point where the claimants had a justifiable claim? Was notice given to the Board of Commissioners by the claimants and a period established within which to remedy the offending condition? If this notice was not given why was the claim paid? If it was given why wasn't an effective remedy initiated?
4. The same line of questions should apply to the recent $157,000 settlement hastily approved by the Commissioners at the last meeting. Allegedly the payment was to cover the differential between what should have been paid, and what was paid, for the disposal of certain material spanning a SIX YEAR PERIOD. How does this happen? Was the PMUA notified that they were erring during these 6 years, or did the County wake up one morning and say: You owe us $157,000? The inquiries made by the Commissioners prior to their approving the Resolution were superficial. The questions which should have been asked were omitted.
5. At the December 28, 2010, rate hearing the figures which were presented allegedly demonstrated that the Shared Service fee for those who had opted out of the PMUA SOLID WASTE COLLECTION HAD TO BE RAISED FROM $62.00 /QUARTER TO $82.00/QUARTER. On reviewing the current billing for PMUA services I was advised by the PMUA office that EVERYONE now pays $82.00/quarter for Shared Service. Did the cost of Shared Service really increase, or did the PMUA realize that charging a differential between those who opted out and those who had not was illegal?If the Shared Services has increased by this extraordinary amount will the PMUA provide the analysis which demonstrates it?
6. Will the PMUA be responsive to the recommendations made in March as received from the Committee appointed by the Council.
7. Explain, with appropriate financial forecasts, how the long anticipated enlargement of the Rock Avenue facility will reduce subscribers rates. Mr. Dunn staed at the last meeting that if the financial relief did not occur then the PMUA should be dissolved. Please ask him for the ime frame which applies to this concept.
It is hoped that the Council can keep the Commissioners focused on providing responsive answers and not let them meander into soliloquies regarding their business experience, incredible wisdom, and histories which are now irrelevant. Good luck with that.
I want the above guy to be my lawyer if I ever get into trouble !!
ReplyDeleteOh sure, and we are to believe that the council is going to do something about the PMUA. Yeah right. It's all a show.
ReplyDeleteGB Thank you for the complement. My name is Bill Kruse. The reason i did not enter my name is because the only way I can get this blog entered is through the anonymous entry.
ReplyDeleteThis evening i learned that the pusillanimous City Council does not intend to query the Commissioners regarding the million dollar boondoggle. Rather, they have an agenda of 3 rather inane subjects. Hurray.Brilliant.Wonderful.
The Governor has not as yet responded to the petition which has been submitted. Our Council is useless. The remaining recourse which may bring the "UNTOUCHABLES" to heal is to OPT OUT. If we can get 500 to 1,000 households to subscribe to private haulers we may bring this renegade organization to heal. Hope to see you Monday at the dog and pony show.
It's about time we get some Democrats into Plainfield Government to clean this mess..oh ..awkward...Sorry about that, wrong entrenched blindly entitled political system...
ReplyDeleteYa da ya da ya da
ReplyDeleteWe as proud plainfielders will continue to support our own and all this posturing and complaining is nothing but yadayadayada
Waste management in Jersey has been a Mafia fiefdom for years... thank God for CHRISTY
who went after them and was successfull in containing this menace...
all you lobbyists for private carting in this city... I hope you know who you are advocating for!!!
PMUA an African American Enterprise with a debt of $48 million dollars... regulated by stae authorities...and has been carrying the City of Plainfields debt ($2million) oh Fanwood's debt to PMUA $19million which settled for $9million recently...
LEAVE PMUA ALONE... GET THIS You can leave Plainfield if you are so unhappy.