Eight interns are working at various PMUA sites after a move to disband the 2013 program failed.
The program was to have started on July 8, but controversy over hiring practices led to a special meeting on July 1 at which commissioners agreed to advertise the opportunity and monitor the selection process. Commissioners Harold Mitchell and Alex Toliver voted "yes" to drop the program for 2013, but Commissioners Malcolm Dunn, Carol Brokaw and Chairman Cecil Sanders voted "no."
PMUA Executive Director Dan Williamson said Wednesday the interns were assigned to locations including the transfer station and various offices. They began Monday and will work for about six weeks at $10 per hour, five hours a day.
The interns are Charles Boyd III, Tanishia Charles, Tyteianna DeBoles, Clayton Gravesandy, Courtney Jenkins, Anoa Morgan, Jarel Pellew and Vachele Wilson.
All are college age and their earnings are expected to help pay for higher education.
Mitchell had proposed dropping the program in light of layoffs and furloughs imposed on PMUA employees, but Sanders said funds had already been budgeted for the 2013 intern program and dropping it would not change the situation.
--Bernice
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Although the intern program is a drop in the bucket compared to other PMUA spending, like the illegal compensation of commissioners or hack legal advice from their attorney, it did open up the conversation to the subject of nepotism that had, by the commissioners' own account, marked the program in years past. Not so this year we were told. But now that the list of interns is available, it may be the joke's on us. What are the odds that Clayton Gravesandy (sic) is the son of PMUA's Recycling Coordinator, Trevor Gravesande, and not even a Plainfield resident either?
ReplyDeleteOk, you may say, enough with the nit-pickery; PMUA made its mark by cleaning up the streets and providing good jobs in town. So what about the Inter Local Agreement contract fraud and the deception about non-existent revenue sharing? So what about the black hole of the Shared System Service fee that permitted virtually unchecked hiring of the properly connected? So what about the $1 million of payola to the managerially-challenged who quit when the going got tough? So what about prohibited campaign contributions that fell into the pockets of two mayoral candidates? So what about what they say? They don't mean it, or they don't understand it. If pressed, they will make up a story and get you with smoke and mirrors.
That 8 young people have the opportunity to develop a work ethic and perhaps enhance some skills is commendable. However, this constructive program should not deflect us form the larger issues. Oral requests, OPRA written applications,neither have been able to extract form the PMUA, or their corroborative auditors,the financial analysis which displays how the amount charged to their captive clients ( us ) for Shared Service is derived. On inspection it is obvious that the amount charged for Shared Services is ludicrous. A proper proportioning would have the Shared Service fee significantly lower and the home pick up much higher. The PMUA can not make the appropriate equitable distribution for for one simple reason. Since the private haulers charge about $32/month the PMUA must approximate that price, and not charge more, lest th PMUA have a massive OPT OUT of homeowners to the private haulers. Under the PMUA Charter the PMUA has the obligation to demonstrate that the fees they charge are appropriate. Can anyone out their figure out how to compel them to do it? I confess to being a dismal failure in this regard.
ReplyDeleteCurrently the Commissioners have passed a resolution to award a contract for the removal of certain class of vegetative waste from Rock Avenue. The contract which the PMUA proposes bears little if any resemblance to the Bid Documents. The PMUA has altered the scope dramatically and done so asserting that the authority to do so is provide by the contract language which permits the PMUA to accept a bid which the PMUA deems to be in their best interest. I do not believe that the radical change proposed, that is, the scope as defined in the documents provided for public bid as contrasted to the scope proposed in the revised contract, is permitted by the provisions in the Bid Documents which the Resolution cites as the authority for the conversion.. A change of the magnitude which the PMUA is contemplating warrants a rebid with the newly defined scope thereby giving all the bidders who invested their time and money to submit a responsive bid have an equal opportunity on the revised basis. . Moreover, the change is so significant that one might suspect that the modified arrangement was premeditated. But, we know that this could not occur with an organization that has the social conscience to put some nice young people to work for the summer. Bill Kruse
Keep being nit-pickey, Alan. You may not think you are making a difference, but slowly people are becoming aware of PMUA and its less than forthright ways.
ReplyDeleteI think they mean it, understand it, and just don't give a rats you know what. They take us all for fools. You prove them wrong.