The special meeting has been called for the purpose of moving the annual school board election from April to November, as now allowed by state law. Either the governing body or school board can decide to make the change. Now that the City Council is taking the lead, I wonder whether school board members will appear to endorse the move, which they could have done later in the month. The idea is that more people will come out to vote at the time of the November general election than at the traditional April school board date. And of course this year a presidential election will be at the top of the ticket for an even larger-than-usual turnout.
Usually budget issues bring out the electorate in school districts, but Plainfield has no say over the school budget anyway, due to the School Funding Reform Act of 2008. So in November it will be about who will hold three three-year seats and one unexpired term.
A quorum of Plainfield Municipal Utilities Authority commissioners is expected to attend Monday's 7:30 p.m. council meeting. That would be three out of the five commissioners or maybe some combination of commissioners and alternates. The board recently split over paying large settlements to former top officials Eric Watson and David Ervin, so it will be interesting to see who shows up to represent the body.
Bloggers and watchdogs will be on the prowl at the Plainfield Public Library no doubt to look at the council's own agenda for Monday. Will there be any legislation related to city expenses incurred by the Dec. 17 fire on North Avenue? A police watch went on at the scene for over a month. And will liens be placed on the property for the partial demolition or did the owner pay for it?
Some will be watching for any further fall-out over the WBLS matter, for which the mayor was reprimanded and assessed a $200 fine. But could there be more action to be taken?
From the Charter:
2.8 Investigations; removals.
(a) The council may make investigations into the affairs of the city and the conduct of any city department, office, commission or agency and for this purpose may subpoena witnesses, administer oaths, take testimony and require the production of evidence. In addition to any other remedy, any person who willfully fails or refuses to obey a lawful order issued in the exercise of these powers by the council shall be adjudged a disorderly person, punishable by a fine of not more than $200.00, or by imprisonment for not more than 30 days or both.
(b) Council may remove any officer or employee, other than the mayor or a councilman, for cause, upon notice and an opportunity to be heard.
So, citizens and dedicated council watchers, come prepared for a possibly long evening but one of high interest. Assemblyman Jerry Green has urged the governing body to move the school board elections and he may attend to cheer them on, who knows.
The next regular meeting will be 8 p.m. Feb. 13 in Municipal Court, at which time the council will vote on any items moved to the agenda on Monday.
--Bernice
So, citizens and dedicated council watchers, come prepared for a possibly long evening but one of high interest. Assemblyman Jerry Green has urged the governing body to move the school board elections and he may attend to cheer them on, who knows.
The next regular meeting will be 8 p.m. Feb. 13 in Municipal Court, at which time the council will vote on any items moved to the agenda on Monday.
--Bernice
It is come to my attention that the Council in its wisdom has not included the matter of the recent awards to the Msrs. Watson and Erwin on their Agenda for teh Monday Monday nightmeeting with PMUA officials.. Rather, they have an agenda consisting of 3 items of lesser importance. It is a matter of curiosity if we consider that the Council spent a great deal of time at several sessions investigating and debating the Mayor's conduct relative to the diversion of some 15 or 20 thousand dollars to pay for a radio show. And, City funds were expended to hire an investigator. The results of the investigation were reported to the County Prosecutor.The Mayor was reprimanded. Now we have a shadowy award of over 1,000,000 dollars, WITHOUT EXPLANATION AND WITHOUT THE PMUA EVEN HAVING IDENTIFIED THE BASIS OF THE CLAIM WHICH RESULTED IN THE AWARD. The Mayor's indiscretion was a peccadillo, a rounding error, as contrasted to the latter which is in the MORTAL SIN category.
ReplyDeleteOn Monday the Council will have the perpetrators seated before them. As it now stands the Council will ignore this conduct.
Where is common sense? Where is reason? Where is the ever illusive Lady Justice? If the present program remains unaltered, and this issue, which cries out for explanation remains undisclosed, the Council to a person will be complicit.
This is being submitted by Bill Kruse. I am entering my name here as the only way I can get this blog admitted is through the "Anonymous" identity. Don't ask me why.
Bill Kruse Why don't you go to the PMUA meeting and dicuss the settlements? If you have questions for PMUA the best way to deal with your questions will be at there meeting.
ReplyDeleteI have attended about 20 meetings over the last 2 1/2 years. At some of these I was the only member of the public present. I even had the pleasure of meeting with Mr. Watson, Erwin, Perry and their Real Estate consultant Bill Populas at a private meeting. The purpose was to provide suggestions regarding the consolidation of the locations presently occupied in order to achieve a significant cost reduction. Nothing came of it, but that is another story for another day. The experiences have been an exercise in futility. The only observable improvement being a reduction in the number of junkets attended by the Commissioners and Senior executives. This resulted from the adverse publicity which arose from the Philip Charles suite.
DeleteAt the 2 most recent meetings I asked that the basis of the Watson Erwin claim be identified. Ms. London the Association attorney refused to provide it. It remains a mystery. As a former panelist of the American Arbitration Association I can tell you that identifying the nature of the dispute in no way compromises the positions of the parties. The refusal to inform the public is a decision of the PMUA and suggests that they have something to hide. What? Why? It suggests that they wanted to get the deed accomplished before anyone could intervene.
Th accumulating evidence strongly suggests that the Commissioners accepted the settlement rather than letting the proceeding go to a conclusion is that the Commissioners were alarmed that the PMUA would WIN the Arbitration. rather the LOSE the Arbitration. If the latter were to occur Mr. Watson and Mr. Erwin would not have received any money.
To show you just one on the litany of hijinks plaese note that when some of the public began to appear at the meetings and criticize the conduct ofte Authority the thin skinned Commissioners reduced the public speaking time from 3 to 2minutes.They even purchased an egg timer which they set at 2 minutes when I rose and screamed me down into my seat when the buzzer went off. Yet the mantra remains" Openness and Transparency.
Hope to see YOU at the next meeting. Look for the good lookin'old guy with glasses,thinning gray white hair and unique blue eyes with just a tinge of green...answers to the name of Bill.
Mr. Kruse,
ReplyDeleteI will ask a number of questions. I received your email--thank you for your persistence. Thank you for posting this, Bernice.
Rebecca
anonymous 12:33, if YOU had attended the pmua meetings you would have seen Mr Kruse.
ReplyDelete