City Administrator Eric Berry derailed City Council plans Monday for a study on possible dissolution of the Plainfield Municipal Utilities Authority, calling instead for an alternate study by the administration.
The governing body was at the point of seeking "requests for qualification" from experts that would make the study and had already allocated up to $50,000 toward the cost. Once completed, the study would have to be submitted to the state Local Finance Board, which would rule on whether the authority should be dissolved.
Instead, Berry gave Council President Adrian Mapp a memo Monday saying "Although the City Council has allocated $50,000 to retain various professionals to conduct a study, the administration has exercised its authority to not spend the taxpayer's money in this fashion."
In the next 30 days, the administration will form a committee "to study this matter in a more cost-effective way," Berry said in his letter. The committee will include members of the administration, council members, two PMUA commissioners, the PMUA's executive director, Plainfield's counsel, PMUA legal counsel, an independent counsel, an independent financial analyst and an engineer.
"Once the committee has reached its conclusions, it will report back to the City Council with its recommendations," Berry's memo said.
Councilman Cory Storch called the memo "misleading" because the council has been advised that the study has to be done a certain way. An outcome where a committee meets and simply reports to the council would be, he said, "clearly a dead end." Storch urged the administration to "rethink the purpose here ... get all the experts together and move ahead."
Councilwoman Annie McWilliams asked about the adminstration's rights versus the governing body's, and City Solicitor David Minchello said the council could not seek requests for qualifications. McWilliams questioned how the council could make a budget decision and then the council could not use the money, saying it was "taking away from the checks and balances."
Minchello said he agreed, but that the adminsitration has the authority "not to use a certain budget line."
Mapp said, "The administration has decided to thumb its nose - the council has lost. The administration, for now, has won."
The PMUA provides sewer and solid waste services to city residents, but stiff rate increases in 2009 led to protests and formation of DumpPMUA, a group that uncovered excessive spending on travel and business lunches by authority officials. The outcry intensified after PMUA officials refused to meet jointly with the council, which then formed a task force to study authority practices. Meanwhile, the PMUA board of commissioners voted to give two former top executives a $1 million settlement, further incurring public wrath. The PMUA task force report in March led to calls for dissolution of the authority and a return to city control of its services.
But in order to dissolve an authority, a specific type of study by experts must be conducted and presented to the state Local Finance Board. The administration's move Monday deflects that possibility.
Although one of seats on the administration's committee is for the city corporation counsel, the post is currently vacant. As of July 1, former Corporation Counsel Dan Williamson is the new executive director of the PMUA. The authority holds it first public meeting with Williamson at the helm at 6 p.m. tonight (Tuesday, July 10) at PMUA headquarters, 127 Roosevelt Ave. See agenda here.
--Bernice
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
She is crafty....wow... I'll give her that every time. If Jerry gives her the line again whew... You New Dems are screwwwwed.
ReplyDeleteWhich commissioners are to be on the panel, some of the four who have been stealing healthcare benefits, or maybe the two who subverted arbitration to award the cowardly quitting executives with $1 million of ratepayer money?
ReplyDeleteWhich council members, the two with relatives working for PMUA, or maybe the two New Dems who voted for an illegal job training contract to go to a former City Council president whose company lied about who its president is, and then rewarded him with a PMUA commissionership? Maybe the administration will wait so the two will be former PMUA commissioners.
Then we've got the new PMUA Executive Director, and former city Corporation Counsel, who is a given. He tried to make a case the authority wasn't an 'agency and instrumentality' of the city, although its own founding documents and state law says it is. He also may have perjured himself in court documents filed in the lawsuit against PMUA a few years ago that misled an inexperienced judge about what the real agreement was between the City and PMUA. He may still not know, and if he does, he should also know the City is lying to us about non-existent revenue sharing.
There will also be Plainfield's counsel, who at the moment is the City Solicitor, and whose law firm helped bankroll PMUA commissioner Tracey Brown's primary campaign for City Council. There will be PMUA's attorney, who has been there from the beginning, making a nice living obfuscating PMUA's legal obligations to the city and its residents.
One of several engineers will be on board, all of whom pay to play, and buy us the lousy local government and the politicians who run it.
Of the Administration, the mayor will probably have a seat, along with some out of town political hack, crony, or two, who no doubt know where the skeletons are buried and how they got there; Or don't, and are simply greasing the skids of declining fortune, as the cost of their employment.
That leaves an independent counsel and an independent financial analyst. I think Jerry Green keeps these independent experts in his inside right pocket.
Back when I was trying to connect the dots of corruption in the wake of Workforce Investment Act violations, and after two New Dems joined with the Administration to vote their approval to loot a Community Development Block Grant to make good on paying off the illegal job training contract, someone with close ties to the mayor told me "It's deep, deep, deep". That's a great characterization for an entity steeped in garbage and sewage, but it is doubtful this alternate study will dig deep enough, or anywhere near the stench. Instead, I expect a whitewash of this cash cow.
Plainfield residents who truly wish for an independent analysis of PMUA should contact the governor, the state comptroller, the Department of Community Affairs, and the attorney general's Division of Criminal Justice, and demand a state-led investigation of all things PMUA.
Oh, surprise, surprise!!
ReplyDeleteThe powers that be subvert the process to shine a light upon them. Scurry, cockroaches, scurry....
Jerry isn't stupid enough to give her the line again, and if she got it Plainfield would be screwed, not just the New Dems. Shady Sharonda wants to keep her friends in their cushy jobs and this shows that she doesn't care about Plainfield or its citizens. We need to have this albatross around our necks removed and the next election can't come soon enough for me.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone really expect any representatives from the administration, two PMUA commissioners, the PMUA's executive director, Plainfield's counsel, or the PMUA legal counsel to objectively conclude that the PMUA should be dissolved. If the council representatives are supporters of the mayor would they be in favor of dissolving it as well. Call me crazy, but this seems like a very stacked deck to me.
ReplyDeleteIf the mayor can choose to not use a certain budget line, then why do we have the budget circus? And what is the use of having a city council?
ReplyDeleteThis charade reminds me of my time as a college professor. The college president wants to do something and knows there will be resistance from the faculty. So he sets up a committee of faculty members who he knows will do his bidding--and of course they do: they make a recommendation to him that is exactly what he wants. When it goes public and there is an outcry from the faculty, he says, "Well, a faculty committee recommended it." Does this sound familiar to you?
ReplyDeleteWhen the rates took a quantum leap 3 years ago and eclectic group on concerned people came together by random chance to explore the workings of the PMUA. Subsequently, each in their own way, attempted to look under the sheets of the PMUA organization. These people without exception have educational and professional backgrounds that qualify them to make the study. An attorney, and educator, a professional engineer, a management consultant. an IT executive, amongst others. The City Council does not have to retain a consultant to start over. To the extent that this group was able to probe the discoveries have lead to the ineluctable conclusion that the PMUA should be dissolved if the motivation is exclusively economic. Politically, it appears to be impossible.The proposed saving evaluated by the Council appointed task force of $8,00,000 annually is realistic if PMUA services are contracted a a private hauler. If the services are transferred to the City, AND ASSUMING THE MIRACLE OF PRUDENT MANAGEMENT IS INITIATED, the estimated prospective saving shrinks to $3,000,000 to $4,000,000 per year. It would take about 3 years to reach this goal. No Bureaucracy can function with the efficiency of an incentive motivated entity. The areas in which the costs can be reduced are conspicuous.The recommendations presented to the Commissioners over the last 3 years have fallen on deaf ears.
ReplyDeleteA recent example was the purchase of a front end loader. It was reported that only 1 responsive bid was received and the machine purchased was a John Deere manufacture.Heavy construction is almost at a standstill. Equipment dealers are salivating to sell their wares. Something is terribly wrong! First of all the work horses are Komatsu and Caterpillar machines. You don't find John Deere equipment very often on heavy construction projects. That aside the idea that there was only one choice suggests either their is something terribly onerous about the bid documents that discourages reputable dealers, or the Authority limited the scope of their inquiry.Why would they do this?
The new Executive Director wears a dignified and professional demeanor. He is educated and brings with him an attorney's ability to understand the Charter and the laws relating to the administration of the Agency.His first job should be to render an opinion as to the legality of the $1,000,000 award to the recently retired Executives. And, if finds that in his opinion the Commissioners have the authority to make similar awards in the future, define the limit, if any, the Commissioners are restricted to? Can the Commissioners award $2,000,000, $5,000,000, $10,000,000, $100,000,000. Where are the words, if any, that proscribe a limit to the Commissioner"s largesse? The Executive Director can stay the course, perform his duties in a perfunctory manner, business as usual, or, be a force for new initiatives and real reform bringing credit to himself and providing relief to the rate payers.
Bill Kruse
This is obsurd! Everyone knows the PMUA is robbing us with our eyes wide open. Why would we want to the same bunch of shady shadies examining the PMUA? Huh? Unbelievable.
ReplyDeleteNo, no, no !! This is just another Republican Let the Rich Stay Rich plan that will ... oh wait, we are a one big Happy Democratic Town, with Democrat Cronies getting Rich !! In fact lets work to hire anyone but Christie to make the rest of NJ as great as Plainfield is !!!
ReplyDeleteDissolution of the PMUA only requires the will and vote of City Council. There is no study requirement to apply to the New Jersey Local Finance Board for dissolution. It is a simple process.
ReplyDeleteEveryone on City council is afraid of dissolution, even those claiming to be in favor of it. Too many people are awash in the $10 million slush fund it provides. It is corruption which can only end with people going away in handcuffs.
Let's be clear that the million dollars was at best an unwarranted gift, was not a settlement based on contract claims, and may have involved criminal activity.
If voters were educated about what PMUA has perpetrated upon them they would throw everyone out of office.
The study is not the issue, nor is the study necessary to move forward based on the City Council PMUA Task Force Report (March 19, 2012) which provided creditable information of the inability of PMUA management to deliver services at a reasonable costs in contrast to other municipalities. On March 19, 2012 at the CIty Council PMUA Task Force Report meeting (held at Washington School), many of the Council Representatives for the City of Plainfield went on record that they are in favor of dissolution of the PMUA. The Plainfield City Council does not require this study in order to move forward; they should be held accountable to put to a vote their public statements for dissolution of the PMUA. The study is not the issue nor the necessary condition for the City Council to move forward to a vote; the City Council should now VOTE to reflect what they have verbally communicate in public record to the taxpayers of Plainfield.
ReplyDelete