The City Council approved Sanders as an alternate on the PMUA board of commissioners in November 2011. He was taking part in only his second PMUA meeting in January 2012 when he was able, in the absence of then-Commissioner Tracey Brown, to provide the third vote necessary to approve a $1 million settlement with two former executives.
In February 2012, holdover Commissioner Harold Mitchell was able to retain his chairmanship for another year, as an attempts to have Sanders replace him fell through. Another nomination for Sanders to replace holdover Commissioner Carol Brokaw was also thwarted in February 2012.
After Tracey Brown left her PMUA seat to become the citywide at-large City Council representative in January 2013, Sanders was approved to fill the vacancy with Brown supplying the fourth vote necessary.
Mitchell and Brokaw are still on the board of commissioners as holdovers, despite five attempts by Mayor Sharon Robinson-Briggs to replace Brokaw and replace or switch Mitchell to a non-voting alternate's seat. (Alternates only vote if needed to make a quorum.)
Other officers named Tuesday were Alex Toliver as vice chairman, Brokaw as secretary and Malcolm Dunn as treasurer. The reorganization included approval of numerous other arrangements for 2013, including contract awards, establishment of a meeting schedule and naming of various consultants.
--Bernice
OMG...shame on us
ReplyDeleteIt's a shame and a sham. When asked in detail about financial irregularities concerning the Inter Local Agreement, the city appropriation, the sewer and solid waste leases, and the portrayal of the sewer lease in the city budget as non-existent revenue sharing, none of them had any adequate answers. It's fraud, plain and simple. But you wouldn't know it, and that's exactly how they want it to be.
ReplyDeleteThree weeks after being seated as an Alternate Commissioner, and less than a month before he voted for the settlement, Sanders was awarded a city contract for the deconstruction of a property on Leland Ave. that wasn't publically bid. In so doing he violated PMUA's own conflict of interest policy:
ReplyDelete“In order to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest, employees are expected to abide by the following code of ethical conduct – Employees of the PMUA should not solicit anything of value from any person or organization with which the PMUA has a current or potential business relationship”.
Inter Local Agreement Section 203B
ReplyDeleteIn consideration for the mutual obligations of the parties hereunder relating to the lease and sale, as the case may be, of Solid Waste System Assets by the City to the Authority and the operation of the Solid Waste System by the Authority, the City and the Authority agree as follows:
(i) The City shall appropriate as a part of its annual budget in each City Fiscal Year commencing July 1, 1997, an amount necessary to pay the cost of disposal of Solid Waste originating within the geographic boundaries of the City. The City appropriation shall be based upon an estimate of the Solid Waste tonnage available for disposal and the disposal cost per ton during the Fiscal Year as set forth in a certificate approved by resolution of the Authority and delivered to an Authorized City representative as of June 1 preceding such City Fiscal Year. In addition to the estimates provided above, such certificate shall set forth the actual numbers of tons disposed and the cost of such disposal for the current City Fiscal Year.
(ii) The Authority shall pay to the City as a lease payment for the Solid Waste System Assets, an amount equal to the difference between (x) the City appropriation provided for in Section 203 (b) (i) above and (y) $1.2 million of said City appropriation. The lease payment shall be payable monthly in arrears on the first day of each month in each Fiscal Year commencing 60 days following the Start-Up of Solid Waste Operations by the Authority.
I thought Dunn would get it. I guess he did with Cecil's appointment!
ReplyDeleteAs part of the Attorney's report it was stated that a settlement had been reached in the dispute between the PMUA and Britton Industries.It will be interesting to see the terms. Hopefully, for the people of Plainfield,they are favorable to the PMUA. The fact remains that appropriate oversight could have precluded the problem. The CFO mentioned that he had sent "the payment" to Britton which he felt would expedite the settlement. The customary manner in which to make payment of a disputed sum is at the closing when the settlement agreement is signed by the parties, not before.
ReplyDeleteDuring the failed attempt to obtain an explanation of the City pays PMUA, PMUA pays City merry-go -round, it was mentioned that should the happy day arrive when the PMUA makes a profit, that is, the income during the year exceeds the amount paid by the public in fees, that the intention was to share the surplus with the City 50/50. I was under the naive impression that if this were to occur the surplus would be used to reduce the rates to the ratepayers the following year? I look forward to facing the problem if it were to occur. Bill Kruse
these Republicans in Plainfield really know how to take care of their own don't they...
ReplyDelete