Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Some Jan. 22 Council Notes

The mayor's personal attorney will receive $22,126 for representing her in the WBLS case, Charles Eke and Cecil Sanders will get their seats on the PMUA, the formerly warring youth baseball leagues will join under the city's aegis and crossing guards will get a raise.

The first two are due to 4-3 votes Tuesday, the third came about through offstage talks and the last one will happen apparently by fiat.

Regarding compensation for the mayor's attorney, Councilman Adrian Mapp said he wanted to state on the record that public funds should never be used for the personal benefit of anyone. Councilman Cory Storch said the law firm was engaged prior to the findings of a council investigation.

"Those are improper fees," Storch said. "The city should not pay for those."

Storch said paying the legal bills "sets a really bad precedent."

But Council President Bridget Rivers said, "We know that services was rendered," and asked City Solicitor David Minchello whether it was likely that if not paid, the attorney "would come after us and sue us."

"Absolutely," Minchello said.

"I think we would be better letting them come after us," Storch said.

But the resolution passed 4-3, with Storch, Mapp and Rebecca  Williams voting "no" and Rivers, Bill Reid, Vera Greaves and Tracey Brown voting "yes."

Sanders and Eke were interviewed Tuesday before the council vote. Williams questioned Sanders extensively on his role in voting to approve a $1 million settlement with two former PMUA executives soon after he was named to the board of commissioners. Sanders said arbitration on the settlement had been postponed and he had decided the arbitration was a mistake.

"Why waste money on legal fees - just grant these people the money they were due," Sanders said he concluded.

The settlements would not raise rates or cause layoffs, he said in response to another question from Williams.  She asked why Sanders said the two directors, Eric Watson and David Ervin "suffered" and Sanders alluded to them having been "under pressure" before they "ended up leaving by mutual agreement."

At the time, Sanders was an alternate and only got to vote because Brown, then a PMUA commissioner, was absent. The vote Tuesday was to give him Brown's unexpired term as a full commissioner.

Eke received fewer questions. Asked for his qualifications to serve as an alternate on the PMUA board, he cited his past service on several other boards and said he would bring "leadership and pro-activeness" to the PMUA board.

Their nominations were in a single resolution that passed 4-3, with Storch, Mapp and Williams voting "no" and Brown, Greaves, Reid and Rivers voting "yes." Brown received assurance from Minchello that she could vote without conflict.

The agenda included a request from Rivers for a "brief update" on the youth baseball leagues. Plaintalker had feared a rehash of the standoff between a volunteer-run league and a city-based one, but the update turned out to be that they would merge in 2013 under city sponsorship. At present, there is no superintendent of Recreation to oversee the program, but  Plaintalker was told the search is on.

In public comment, resident Melvin Cody said crossing guards deserve a raise and crossing guard William Shaw said he had served 10 years with only "one decent raise." Shaw said crossing guards in Westfield get $19 per hour and vigorously argued for an increase here, citing the guards' service in all weather and an instance where a guard took on a fatherly role in dissuading a young girl from using bad language. Mapp, Storch, Brown and Williams spoke in favor of considering a raise during the budget process. But City Administrator Eric Berry said, "Consider it done," and the audience, including several crossing guards,  broke into applause.

--Bernice

28 comments:

  1. Bernice,

    When Mr. Berry said "Consider it done"--I can't imagine that he meant the administration would be "granting" raises to the crossing guards, as the council is the body that passes the budget, not the mayor and her administration. I certainly hope he misspoke--if not, his choice of words was misleading. Also, the $22,000+ that the mayor received (one might as well consider it cash given to her!) would have gone a long way toward raises for deserving folks such as the guards. Instead, she gets $22,000 of taxpayer dollars to pay personal legal bills. This is disgusting and deeply offensive.

    Rebecca

    ReplyDelete
  2. when a police officer seeks legal defense in the performance of his duties, do they not need approval prior to any legal proceedings or are their bills paid after the fact? Just asking - so why is this any different if they need prior approval.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Rebecca you paid your council lawyer friend over $60,000.00. As it was spoken by Council president at the time that your Lawyer friend took advantage of you guys. You called council women McWilliams on the phone so the VOTE can pass to award him the extra money that he asked the council for. That was a political kick-back for you so stop crying. I sat in the meeting and watched the 4 council member's at the time just rave how good Ramon your lawyer was. Councilmen Reid said it best the results from your attorney a 5 year old could have written it. I have not been to a council meeting this year, but as I can hear work is really being done. I could be wrong on the amount of money that was paid to your lawyer friend as I think it was much more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To Anonymous at 8:57 am:

      You words betray you as one who lies. Also, one doesn't have to be a linguist to discern that diction can reveal one's identity--yours is quite clear. It is also clear from each sentence that you write that you are a partisan of incompetence, avarice, and fraud. You hear that "work is really being done" this year? Well, now I think everyone knows who and what you are.

      Rebecca

      Delete
    2. A further thought: I agree with the public comment made at the end of the meeting regarding Corporation Counsel's role. I, too, found it extremely inappropriate for Corporation Counsel to have been placed in the role of keeping time during public comment. That is not his role; indeed, there are two individuals--the City Clerk and the Deputy City Clerk--who have a timer and who can let residents know when their time has been exceeded--the buzzer is rather loud. For Corporation Counsel to overstep in this way, when the city council president is sitting right there and is certainly capable of letting the resident know that the comments need to come to a conclusion, is troubling. That the interjection about time came when the content of the comments was being critical of the administration and the governing body suggests that the administration and the governing body do not want to hear dissenting voices--which is even more troubling. I hope it does not happen again. As the resident stated, Corporation Counsel is there to answer legal questions, not to keep time. I hope he is not placed in this position again.

      Rebecca

      Delete
  4. Unfortunately the City Council blew its wad investigating pip-squeak stuff while the gangsters' truck was backed-up to the loading dock making off with the main course.

    ReplyDelete
  5. As I said in my remarks last night, it is appalling that the mayor put the city at risk for having the taxpayers pay out more money, as it appears she had no intention of paying for the services herself. This is a mayor who cares about the city and the taxpayers? If so, please, don't care so much.

    So the mayor either didn't know or didn't care. Not great qualities for leading the city.

    And for the council, please do not talk about how people in Plainfield are hurting. You just took over $22,000 out of OUR pockets because of the mayor's arbitrary actions.

    Jeanette

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jeanette you never spoke about how Councilmen Mapp, Councilwomen Williams, Councilmen Storch took over $100,000.00 dollars out of taypayers pockets to pay for an attorney that council approved a certain amount of money, then he took it upon himself without getting council approval to do extra work to make more money off the taxpayers of Plainfield. They did the same thing that the Mayor did and no-one spoke about it but councilmen Reid. I am defiantely not a mayor supporter and will never Vote for her in this upcoming election nor will I VOTE for councilmen Mapp, but right is right. I do not agree at all with the council member's supporting to pay the Mayor's bills but if we are going to talk about them then lets put all the cards on the table. All seven of them need to go. Mapp, Storch, Williams, are not better then Reid, Greaves, Rivers, Browne

    ReplyDelete
  7. This is the same Mayor that gave gang members hugs and jobs

    ReplyDelete
  8. The mayor got the attorney early to try and scare the council, that didn't work -- so in reality this is her expense that she occurred alone and should be paid by her alone. Why should my taxes go towards paying her crap TAKE THAT MONEY AND GIVE IT TO THE X-ING GUARDS!

    It was up to the council when Mapp was President to point out the errors, they didn't let's move on. It is going to be a painful and yet another LONG YEAR, what's up with Tracey Brown that she feels she always have to defend herself on everything that has been said to her...the church knows when their toes are getting stepped on.

    Happy to hear about Baseball, I see when root of evil is gone (Dave) we see that people can now talk sensibly about our children

    ReplyDelete
  9. A point on when Storch asked the questions on the open seat on the PMUA Board was being filled WHY did it take the administration so long looking through papers to say Tracey Brown. The mayor was sitting right there and didn't know the answer either.

    So legal counsel instead of worrying about the time keeping know your job, don't worry about other folks job. You use to be humble, now you are up there cocky and arrognant. That's not a good look when you can't answer simple questions immediately!

    ReplyDelete
  10. With all the corruption and kick backs going on, why can't these people figure out a way to benefit the City of Plainfield and steal at the same time the way other towns do? If the elected officials really live here wouldn't they want to see their hometown prosper? I am not a fan of Adrian Mapp...but I do think he can do a better job governing than the current administration. I'd rather have the Blind leading the Stupid than the other way around. At least the blind can feel their way around. Stupid is just Stupid!!!

    ReplyDelete
  11. It is so obvious that Sharon has her legions of liars and fact benders working for her. I was at that meeting and many others and there is a principle that needs to be defended when a mayor treats public funds as her own pocket book to spend on what she wishes. This mayor has decided to not follow the rules and run Plainfield into the ground in many ways. If you don't have the guts to let people know who you are when you're backing the mayor and her stooges and the rape of Plainfield, then you are cowards. It is easy to identify some people by the way they write, so you're not as hidden as you think. There will be a big change in City Hall come June and on the city council in the near future. It "We the people", no Sharon's people.

    ReplyDelete
  12. at 8:57 AM and 10:08 AM and anyone else looking to support Sharon Robinson-Briggs et al:

    You don't seem to care that Rivers, Reid, Greaves and Brown, who represent some of the most underprivileged residents of our City, voted to take even more money out of the working poors' pocket, including seniors, single-parent households and everyone else trying to "get by"; for those of you who don't pay property taxes directly because you're not a homeowner, you pay them indirectly through increased rents.

    It's not surprising this particular group of people are not concerned with taxes because they don't seem to pay their fair share on a timely basis, or at all. I indicated at last night's meeting (without mentioning names at the time) Reid and Greaves, combined, are each severely delinquent with their property tax payments (definition of delinquent = have not paid); the name of Bridget Rivers doesn't appear anywhere on Plainfield's property tax rolls (does she pay property taxes at all?); Tracy Brown's house of worship, of which she is the pastor and founder is tax exempt (definition of tax exempt = does not pay taxes). This is all a matter of public record and can easily be researched in less than 10 minutes.

    In effect, 100% of the people, who voted to pay for Sharon Robinson-Briggs' misdeed (Reid, Rivers, Greaves and Brown) in some form or other DO NOT PAY TAXES or their fair share. They have implied, through their vote that they condone and endorse the misuse of tax payer funds, and further imply that the financial well-being of Plainfield's tax payers is not of any concern to them.

    Add insult to injury as these very individuals swiftly collect their salary and benefits for sitting on the Council, at the expense of the tax payer.

    It's time for a radical change in Plainfield, too much of the same for so long = poor results. It's all the same people all the time in different roles.

    Those of us trying to create change cannot do it by ourselves. We need support to create the change we need to make our streets safe and cleaner, increase property values and enhance the City's public school system.

    Show your support by going to a Council Meeting and bringing a neighbor or friend, voicing your opinion, or simply vote for change!

    Too much of anything is never a good thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps we should purchase the tax liens of these representatives on council when they become available, maybe then we will get their attention.

      Delete
  13. One can not think of a better reason to reject Mr. Sanders appointment to th Board of Commissioners of the PMUA than his vote to make the award of $1,000,000 to the retired executives.. Now, in the interview for permanent appointment, he not only remains unrepentant, but advances his advocacy by stating that the Arbitration should never have occurred. Rather, in order to save "Legal fees" , the award to the claimants should have been made when the claim was initially submitted. Consider: The claim was not for the $1,000,000 which represents the "settlement sum", but was $1,600,000. The combined legal fees were somewhat over $100,000 . So, by Mr. Sanders logic, absent the Arbitration, the PMUA would have paid the $1,600,000 a cool $500,000 more! While the basis of the claim remains a closely guarded secret, corroborative information indicates that the claimants alleged that they were under "stress" because the inconsiderate public had begun to challenge the competency of their administration. Physical and mental degradation is covered by Workman's Compensation Insurance. It remains speculation, but it seems likely that had the Arbitration gone to a decision that the claimants would not have prevailed. The terms of the claimants employment contracts were unambiguous. If the claimants opted to RESIGN, and they did so in writing, they had no basis for the claim. If we examine the timing and sequence of events it appears that faced with imminent defeat in the Arbitration, the parties, and this may well have included Mr. Sanders and other Commissioners, formulated the settlement proposal and hastened to bring it to vote before the Arbitration concluded lest the claimants lose everything through the decision of the Arbiter..

    As to the comment that the settlement did not require an increase in rates the obvious response is that the settlement prevented a decrease in rates. To suggest that awarding $1,000,000 has no impact in the rates is one of three things: profound lack of understanding of how things work in the real world, spin, or a combination thereof.

    It seems to me that Mr. Sanders' responses, rather than providing a basis for his appointment, provided a prima facie case for his rejection. The PMUA remains unrepentant, unreformed and emboldened with the majority City Council and the Administration squarely behind them . The only effective form of protest is TO OPT OUT.
    Bill Kruse

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said Bill, I was at the meeting and Sanders reasoning was maddening to say the least. According to Sanders the settlements would not raise rates or cause layoffs, yet the PMUA still has the money to afford this?? This can only mean that the PMUA has charged ratepayers in excess of 1 MILLION DOLLARS over what was actually needed to operate. If they can afford to pay this without layoffs or rate increases, they why have they not reduced their budget by 1 MILLION DOLLARS?!? Obviously if the funds are available to make these ridiculous payouts, then clearly its should have been given back to ratepayers in a refund. This is the reason our rates are so high compared to similar size municipalities. And to think Mr Sanders was touting the recent rate reductions, real rate reductions would have been giving that 1 MILLION back to the ratepayers.

      Delete
  14. Oscar Riba you are nothing more than a angry man. You a JOKE and I like coming to the meeting to watch your comedy. You ask one of the speakers to meet you to talk to you after the meeting then you run after the meeting. Stop being a COWARD. Don't run win the meeting is over stay around for some healthy dialogue. You are truly a big JOKE

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can only reply to this by stating that that true coward here is you for the simple reason that you fail to state your name as part of your commentary. However, if I am nothing more than an angry man, then add me to the long list of angry men in Plainfield, I'm sure your name would be at the top of that list.

      AND, the only joke here is your lack of proper spelling and grammar.

      I left for 2 reasons -- like so many other residents, I have to wake up very early to go to work so I can pay my taxes in a timely fashion -- I don't rely on others to pay my bills; moreover, I knew I'd be seeing, this evening, the person to whom I quietly whispered "let's talk" -- I didn't agree to meet with anyone after the meeting.

      I'm not surprised by your comments. It's par for the course in Plainfield that if you challenge the administration or its supporters you are either racist or a republican -- I can comfortably say neither one applies to me.

      Thank you for your thoughts, from "one angry man" to another.

      Delete
    2. Any hardworking taxpaying citizen of Plainfield should be ANGRY! The mayor has done nothing to improve the quality of life or safety in this city but waste our tax dollars. At least Oscar had the COURAGE to stand up for the 4th ward (thank you) whose council representatives do nothing to support the areas they represent. Oscar is right the 4th ward is disgusting there is trash everywhere and they don't seem to care. Crime is rampant yet nothing gets done, shotspotter is a joke and another waste of tax payer money. Public housing complexes are just drug hideouts for criminals. Houses are worth nothing in areas of the 4th ward, almost every home for sale under 100k is in the 4th and 3rd wards. The real joke is people like you who dont want to see any real progress. We need more people like Oscar to voice their opinions to improve the quality of life issues.

      And as for Anonymous, can you be anymore of a COWARD than to not publish your name????

      L. R. Elliot
      4th Ward Resident

      Delete
  15. Perhaps the scariest part of this is the message it sends to our Mayor: She can improperly spend city funds with impunity. Council resorted to legal action over the WBLS fiasco because the mayor used city money improperly, then she refused to cooperate with Council's legitimate investigation. So, the next time our Mayor wishes to spend city monies on things of questionable value and legality, she can basically do whatever she wants. Council members, next time, may hesitate to respond forcefully because they'll know that city taxpayers would again get stuck with the mayor's legal bills.
    Isn't there something we can do? I can't believe this is legal. This effectively places the mayor above the law.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We can vote out Greaves, Rivers, and Reid. We're stuck with Brown for another four years, but after that, vote her butt out. The people need to get involved and I believe we have a lot of angry people in Plainfield. Don't vote the party line, vote your pocketbook.

      Delete
    2. You can try and vote them out but unfortunately most of their supporters are in the lower income brackets and are receiving all sorts of governments handouts and entitlement programs so they could care less about everyone else's pocketbook it's all about me me me to them. Sad but true and i doubt that will change, whats best for Plainfield is not whats best for them.

      Delete
  16. To 10:08 am - Thank you - I believe fair is fair, and I will ask about that incident. However, when does it all stop? Is it Mayor 1 - Mapp - 1, and now what happens?

    When I spoke last night I stated that it appears that decisions are made based on Personal Gain, Political Party, and Friendships. You may notice that the citizens of Plainfield are not on the list.

    What I don't get is where is the outrage? Do the majority of people in Plainfield think that all is well with the city? Do they really feel that they are getting good services for the taxes they pay (which would be much more if we had to include the school - which by the way we are little by little). Pretty soon our taxes will be as high as Westfield/Cranford, and for what?

    I don't get it. -Jeanette

    ReplyDelete
  17. She asked why Sanders said the two directors, Eric Watson and David Ervin "suffered" and Sanders alluded to them having been "under pressure" before they "ended up leaving by mutual agreement."
    --------- I'm wiping the tears away as I type this.. Thank God Sanders was there to save them anymore pain and suffering. His soul will truly be remembered as having been altruistic and giving toward others. His brain however will go down in Plainfield history a short step behind Bill Reid for lack of intelligence.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Wasn't he the same guy who said he would give them more than 1 million if possible?

    This city is more arrogant than any other I have witnessed. Selfish people.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous says that trash is everywhere in the 4th ward.

    Maybe the people in the 4th ward should get off their ...... and pick up the trash. who puts it there the people in the 1st ward. That's right the Plainfield way is someone else should do the work.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dear Mr. Elliot, I think you are a courageous man.

    ReplyDelete