Harold Mitchell, a former mayor and councilman and past chairman of the Plainfield Municipal Utilities Authority, emerged again as chairman Tuesday after attempts to sideline him fell through.
Mitchell was targeted for an alternate's role in two mayoral appointment rosters offered this month that did not gain City Council approval. As an alternate, he would only be able to vote in the absence of a quorum of PMUA commissioners and could not serve as chairman. He won Tuesday with "yes" votes from himself and Commissioners Carol Ann Brokaw and The Rev. Tracey Brown. Commissioner Malcolm Dunn voted "no" and Commissioner Alex Toliver abstained.
Had Mitchell been unable to serve, Dunn was expected to emerge as chairman, but his key role in granting $725,000 in settlements to two former top PMUA executives has made him a controversial figure, especially to PMUA watchdogs. In a public hearing after the annual reorganization concluded Tuesday, Dunn and PMUA critic Bill Kruse got into a verbal sparring match that escalated after the meeting was adjourned.
An attempt to seat Dunn as vice-chair failed Tuesday.
"We have an unusual situation," PMUA attorney Leslie London said as the roll call came up short of the three votes needed for approval. A second try also failed, leaving the seat vacant.
Brokaw received another term as secretary, although she alluded to plans to step down. She was not on either of the two mayoral appointment lists and would have been off the board Tuesday if either had prevailed. Under state authority law, she can stay on as a holdover even though her term has ended.
Commissioner Alex Toliver, now also a holdover, was named treasurer.
The voting included attempts by Dunn to have Cecil Sanders Jr. named as an officer, even though as an alternate he is ineligible. Sanders and Dunn both came to the PMUA board in November and both took part in going outside arbitration to strike the settlement deal with former Executive Director Eric Watson and Assistant Executive Director David Ervin. Toliver gave the third vote necessary for approval of the settlement in January.
A move to extend the one-year term of interim Executive Director Duane Young to three years faltered in favor of continuing a search for a new director.
In the public hearing portion of the meeting, several residents who have closely followed PMUA doings excoriated Dunn and Sanders for their part in the settlement, but Dunn said Watson deserved to be rewarded for his role in developing the authority. Councilman Cory Storch, who with Councilwoman Bridget Rivers is the governing body's 2012 liaison to the PMUA, expressed disappointment with the settlement and said a citizen task force appointed by the council to study the PMUA's workings will give its final report on March 19.
--Bernice
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Deserve to get the settlements??? Get real. This is a public job. They don't DESERVE anything after they resigned. They also played the biggest role in fleecing the property owners. No other MUA has such high rates that they mandate you pay. They are not competitive and quite frankly no one would use them if we didn't have to pay their shared services charge.
ReplyDeletePMUA has been acting in contravention of a number of state and local statutes, including operating under a different method of payments to the City that is not provided for in the Inter Local Agreement and has never been approved by either governing body.
ReplyDeleteThis change, which occured almost immediately following adoption of the ILA, looks like a bait and switch that has cost the city, taxpayers, and ratepayers possibly millions of dollars. It has severed the ties of regulatory and fiscal oversight, essentially turning PMUA into a private entity, answerable to no one, save the inconvenience of dealing with the public for two-minute sound bites at periodic meetings.
Additionally, PMUA commissioners are paid a package of benefits, over the years amounting to $100,000s, in clear violation of municipal law and supporting state statutes.
These are among other questions that have been asked recently to both PMUA and the City Council. As with the illegal contracting for job-training between the City and Malcolm Dunn's Incubator, I have to ask why you choose to serially ignore this?
Alan,
DeletePlease tell us what can be done?
Hi Bernice,
ReplyDeleteThanks for keeping us informed in this PMUA matter. Not being one that follows closely PMUA matters it was insulting to find out about the settlement and how two of the new appointed PMUA commissioners went out of their duties as commissioners and settled a matter that should had been settled by all commissioners. I am still trying to understand how this happened and how this matter has not attracted the attention of the state and/or the media.
I am also concerned about the lack of accountability there seems to be from the ones who ended approving these two commissioners, tracing back the council votes in your blog I was able to learn that Mr. Dunn was confirmed by Reid, Greaves, Rivers, Mapp and McWilliams. Mr. Sanders was confirmed by Mapp, Rivers, Greaves and Reid. I would very much like to see what these councilors have to say about the mess that the settlement is. I pretty much believe that we are owed an explanation by these councilors on how and why the approved two people that are now in the midst of a million dollar settlement. It is only fair that these councilors step up, clear the air and provide us with a clear map on how they are planning to correct this mess.
First, this is insulting to the citizens of Plainfield that they think we don't know that this is a croneism, and that the commissioners do not give a hoot about bettering Plainfield. It is about Power, politics and money. However, most of the people of Plainfield stand for it, so shame and them and you get what you deserve.
ReplyDeleteIt also sounds very illegal. The state should be looking into this. Philip Charles will be getting an email from me.
It is true that the lawyer was reading "Robert's Rules for Dummies" at the meeting?
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely true Anon 8:30, Leslie London was reading from "Robert's Rules for Dummies"!
ReplyDeleteBoth she and Dan Williamson show extreme ignorance of the law, a disregard for it, as well as a habit of misstating it. The legal advice PMUA and the city get is next to awful.
Bill Kruse says:
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect to Bernice's outline of the bizarre events at last night's meeting I think she missed some highlights.
Ms. London, attorney to the PMUA, had promised to identify the basis on which the Watson/Ervin claim was founded. It took 4 repetitions of the question to extract a response. The rejoinder was an obfuscation. Ms. London stated that the Arbitration resulted from a dispute over the terms of Watson's and Ervin's employment contracts. WHAT A REMARKABLE EXPLANATION! Enlightening to a fault! She added to the TRANSPARENCY of this statement that neither Watson or Ervin submitted a resignation. Later, Commissioner Saunders, when queried regarding his rationale for approving the settlement, stated that it was because Watson and Ervin had done a remarkable job making the PMUA "a success". One can conclude that since the performance of these men was so exemplary that it warranted a million dollar Bon Voyage Bonus that they were not dismissed for cause.
Sooooo...they did not quit and they weren't fired. WHY WEREN"T THEY STILL IN THE JOBS SITTING THERE LAST NIGHT?
On the heels of these contradictory revelations Commissioner Saunders was asked what formed the factual basis of his approval of the $725,000 settlement ( plus $80,000 for plaintiff's attorney and $15,000 for Arbitration costs). Precedent to this question Mr. Saunders had testified that he did not attend any of the arbitration proceedings. He further testified that he did not read the transcripts of the proceedings. When asked, if the attorney representing the PMUA at the proceedings ( who was identified as, guess who, Ms London ) had endorsed or discouraged the settlement on the night of the fateful vote . Ms. London interrupted, claiming attorney /client privilege and directed Mr. Saunders not to answer. Ms. London, as an attorney, is ethically bound to conform to this ethic. However, the client, in this case Mr. Saunders,is not under a reciprocal constraint. Ms. London just did not want Mr. Saunders to reveal her position in the settlement.
The dramatic highlight of this bizarre evening
was overlooked. An elderly woman who had sat patiently until almost the end of these histrionics, rose and with a compelling humility explained that the high cost of the PMUA service was a burden, that she lived alone and relied on her one person income to survive. That she had been misled by advice from a PMUA employee who had discouraged her from OPTING OUT. She had been told that the cost of her PMUA charges would not increase; they did. She wanted to know what she should do?
The commissioners do not understand their function. They are SUPPOSED to represent the 12,000 families who are captive subscribers. People like the lady who pleaded a hardship. Thousands of whom were represented in absentia by that lady last night. The commissioners have it backwards, Theyrepresent the PMUA. They are an extension of the organization, not mature, stern, administrators providing wisdom and restrain for the benefit of their constituency: the public, and collaterally for the employees of the PMUA. If the day should come that the only solution is dissolution, the Commissioner cadre will be the culprits who triggered it, not the activists who have unsuccessfully sought reform.
Yes, Mr. Kruse, Tuesday's meeting probably had enough content for a mini-series and a comedy special. A full accounting of all details would have been a transcript, not a blog post. I'm sure each person present took away his or her impressions of the most significant parts of the meeting. Thanks for sharing yours.
DeleteYes. Leslie London whipped it out when she wasn't sure if a commissioner could change his vote well after the vote was taken.
ReplyDeleteYes again Thankfully this was an ALL Democratic Party settlement. If those Republicans had been in it well ... who knows what the mess might have been. Ervin & Watson might have only gotten a watch like those poor slobs at the yard get when they retire [from actually going down into the sewers]
ReplyDeleteI agree strongly with Maria Pellum that City Council members have some explaining to do with regard to the appointments of Malcolm Dunn and Cecil Sanders to the PMUA Commission. Count me among those not surprised by the fact that the first act of the newly appointed commissioners was to approve $725,000 in extra severance pay to two employees who had left the agency in disgrace and who had distinguished themselves only by stirring up a DUMP PMUA movement with their lavish expenditure of ratepayers' money on travel and meals.
ReplyDeleteI have never believed Councilman Mapp to have any but the best intentions, but I confess to being deeply troubled by his vote in favor of the appointments. I hope that Councilman Mapp will assure Plainfielders that he didn't make a deal with party chair Jerry Green to get the Democratic line in next year's election in exchange for his votes to put Dunn and Sanders on the PMUA board. Those of us who see the $725,000 as Jerry Green's reward to two guys who obediently created jobs at ratepayers' expense for any of Mr. Green's campaign workers in financial need think Mr. Mapp owes us an explanantion.
Notes from Underground
Of course Mapp made his deal with Green. Just like Green made his deal with Charlotte.
DeleteCharlotte said "Jerry , make up with those New Dems in Plainfield, they're a nuisance and we can't afford to fight them anymore. If you don't we will not give you the line. As a bonus get what you can out of Mapp"
Green got what he wanted, Dunn and Sanders.
You can't make this stuff up!
Mapp only wants the corruption to be his to dictate. He will spar with the mayor who has been his arch competitor for power in Corruption City, USA, but his true colors are shining through bright and clear. He's not to be trusted one bit. His votes speak for themselves. If he can't stick his thumb in Sharon's eye he's got no principles to fall back on save his own ambition.
ReplyDelete@Maria: this matter certainly did attract my attention. http://mycj.co/y0MDuK
ReplyDeleteNot only are Mapp's votes particularly troublesome but he indicates that he would vote the two in again if he had to do it over. On top of that our esteemed Mr. Green says he doesn't know enough about what happened to comment. Spare us. This is a complete 3-ring circus. They are all corrupt and could care less about Plainfielders. It's about their pockets. I am embarrassed to have voted for Mapp. Never again. His record and recent comments speak loud and clear. I guess Burney was right.
ReplyDeleteAnd as usual they will turn this into a "political" thing while the taxpayers are robbed again.
Mapp votes to get elected, not for the good of the residents of Plainfield.
DeleteA few years ago he assured a fellow New Dem Councilor that he would vote for reducing the size of the Police force. That Councilor then assured another Councilor how Mapp promised to vote to secure his vote. When the voting occurred Mapp, as the committee of the whole, voted last, this was also the year he was running for Mayor, HE LIED AND CHANGED HIS VOTE.
The reduction in the Police forced passed without Mapp's vote. And he lost his bid for Mayor.
Mr. Mapp. what comes around goes around. Stop the self-serving politics, vote to end Dunn and Sanders on the PMUA.
There is still time to do the right thing for the people of Plainfield.
Email Mapp at: adrian.mapp@plainfield.com and tell him to stop the madness at the PMUA.
I have a question,,,Why would anyone sell the sewer component to a private interest for 19million dollars, Mind you this was bringing the city of plainfield 21million yearly!!!
ReplyDeleteplease answer this questtion!!!!!
Council President Mapp hold your head you have my support and you will get more support from people who never supported you before. When you ran for Mayor he beat Mayor Robinson-Briggs hands down in the second ward. The number's will show a margin of about 2 to 1 and you still lost the election. If you look at the comments they are coming from the 2nd ward. Look at the numbers on the petition the numbers show a little under 300 votes. There are overs let's say $30,000 residents in the city that can VOTE. GO FIGURE. Keep up the good work. i thought I would never say this i will support you in your upcoming election and i will be out there beating the STREETSS. JOB WELL DONE
ReplyDeleteThis comment is particularly disheartening and the identity of its author should be questioned.
DeleteJob well done? For what? For putting Dunn and Sanders on the PMUA and having them give their friend Watson a Million Bucks? Are you serious? Do you really think this is a job well done? I don't care what ward your from, this is naive.
As far as your comments on the Wards; the actions of the PMUA, and now Mapp, hurt the residents in the 1st, 3rd and 4th Wards proportionally higher then 2nd Ward residents.
Why is that?
If you view the Census you will see that incomes are much higher in the 2nd ward. And this is not necessarily a race issue as only 8.8 % of the city is white, and only 17% of the 2nd ward is white. Those with higher incomes will be less affected by the sky high rates from the PMUA. Would you not agree?
YOU the Author, you Adrian Mapp, you the PMUA Commissioner, you are hurting the poor disproportionately higher. Are you not?
And as far as Adrian now aligning himself with you, I mean Jerry Green, what you are saying is that the residents of the 2nd ward are the only ones who should be concerned about the rates at the PMUA, and if you screw the people in the other wards you will more likely get elected to be Mayor. Is that what you are saying?
And as far as the online petition, it is only reaching those that read Dan Damon's blog. The PMUA outrageous rates are a hot topic in every home in the City. You just don't hear as much from the residents of those other wards because they are disenfranchised. If that petition went door to door in the city, not only would you fill the petition, you would garner enough votes to re-call the Mayor and Adrian Mapp.
For the author of the comment to act as if it's just a 2nd ward issue is pure ignorance.
Ega Brag
Again i will say it's not about the settlement it's about the SKIN COLOR of the men that received the settlement. Plainfield WAKE up. To the President of the Council, I am working right now to make sure ou are re-elected. Sometimes Council member's have to make tough decesions. I as a resident, taxpayer, and VOTER in the city of plainfield with a LARGE FAMILY that vote in EVERY ELECTION will be out ther working for you. Where do you start your campaign, and where is the campaign headquarter's. Please keep us posted on your blog with your kick-off.
ReplyDeleteLatecia Williams
Not only are your comments racist, they are ignorant.
DeleteWhy is it that when people are on the wrong-side of an issue they pull out the race card?
Hey Anon at 6:04 - This isn't about Mapp and his political aspirations. This is about the thousands of households that are getting fleeced by the PMUA. That is the problem with this city... everything is about what's in it for them, rather than what's in the best interest of the collective whole. It doesn't take half a brain to see that the payouts were not warranted. The arbitration if played out would have yielded payments of no more than $275k TOTAL! Yet, we are on the hook. Either rates will go up or employees of the PMUA will end up covering the cost with reduced pay.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, only about 5,000 people (if that) will actually vote. Mapp and others can back track but the records are clear. For four years they have done nothing about the PMUA. Not one single thing. Rates are still high and they continue to spend spend spend.
The only thing that can help our city get out of this mess is outside intervention. God willing that will happen.