Thursday, November 14, 2013

More On Budget Transfers

The list above is where budget transfers were going before Resolution 373-13 went off the rails Tuesday
(Click to enlarge). S&W is Salary & Wages, OE is Other Expenses.

The only items approved were Recreation, Recreational Seasonal and an addition of $15,000 for Other Expenses, totaling $51,000, to be taken from the Worker's Compensation line.

The $131,091.38 for the Police Division was initially the most controversial. Councilman Cory Storch called it "really inappropriate" and said it was for lame duck appointments and was not "good government." He said it would impact city finances for years to come. Public Safety Director Martin Hellwig was not present to explain, nor was acting City Administrator Al Restaino, who is also the director of Administration & Finance.

Councilwoman Tracey Brown said she had spoken to Restaino and was told taxpayers will not be compromised.

Councilman and Mayor-elect Adrian Mapp objected to the PMUA transfer of $163,085.23. Corporation Counsel David Minchello explained that the city had FEMA funds that PMUA could not directly receive. He said FEMA gave the funds to the city to give to PMUA.

"You cannot transfer a grant," said Mapp, who is a certified chief financial officer in another municipality.

Mapp said if if the money was not received at the time the budget was adopted, all grants were swept into a grant fund.

Minchello said OEM Coordinator Sheldon Green said it was considered a reimbursement, not a grant. But Mapp said there are only three ways the city, saying it was a grant. Green later explained that PMUA had helped the city clean up after the Oct. 29, 2012 storm and was in fact a "vendor" of services to help clean the streets.

The shift to concern about Recreation costs began after public comment from a parent who alluded to a "misappropriation," but said there were misappropriations in everything. She said she knew all the staff in Recreation and that their children took part along with hers in the programs.

"We need staff that cares," she said in support.

Council President Bridget Rivers said in a comment to the administration that she was appalled to be just hearing that the Recreation program was being shut down.

"I think it's so unfair," she said. "I believe you guys should have contacted us. It's embarrassing."

Later, coach Lenny Cathcart spoke on Recreation as reported here.

When the transfers came up in the regular meeting that began around 10 p.m., Police Officer Nuno Carvalho spoke in public comment about the budget transfers for police, saying in 2003 police staff was cut and crime spiked. He said if the promotions were funded, the council should make sure it had funding for new officers.

Later, Councilwoman Rebecca Williams sought to amend the resolution by taking out the police item. But the vote failed.

Mapp spoke about the police funding, saying he intended to treat everyone who works for the city of Plainfield with respect. He said police will be treated fairly and get what they justly deserve, but called the promotions "disturbing" and spoke of their future negative impact on budgets.

However, concerns about the police and PMUA items became irrelevant when the focus shifted solely to Recreation.
In retrospect, this episode of legislation through drama was very odd. I'm told the meeting is up on PCTV already, so viewers can judge for themselves. No one was present to stick up for other categories of transfers, such as crossing guards.If that budget line falls short, guards will not be paid and police will have to fill in at a much higher cost. The largest transfer would have been $592,750 for Health Benefits. No one spoke in favor of saving that line.

The council can still make transfers in December or, if necessary, could hold a special meeting to deal with the issue. The next agenda-fixing session is Dec. 2 and the regular meeting is Dec. 9.

--Bernice

19 comments:

  1. One of the agenda items was the cancellation of some $500,000 plus of grant balances that were never expended. Of these, there were two items for $68,787 tied to the Community Services Block Grant the city received as part of the Stimulus funding. This total grant was roughly $268,000. It may be the two entries represent sloppy bookkeeping and only the single amount was lost, or it may be that over half the grant was returned. I tend to think it was the former, while the remainder was used for the illegal Incubator job-training program and the city's cut for defrauding the public. The many issues involved are too complex to get into for this post, but in any event it was inexcusable the city lost any part of the money, which could have provided a valuable resource for emergency heating and prescriptions for needy residents, among other things, not to mention legitimate and vetted programs such as Commercial Drivers License training. The city sat on the grant for well over a year and couldn't juggle it fast enough before time ran out for its use.

    One lesson learned is that City Council needs to provide better oversight of the money gifted to us. For several years now I've advocated for a monthly Grant Status Report that would track every grant from the time of application until the last penny was spent. This could be done via an electronic database, in keeping with the technology emphasis voiced by the incoming mayor. It should be readily available to all branches of city government, as well as the public at large. Not only would it provide added transparency and accountability, it could be used as a measure of our success in obtaining grants and a means for the general public to suggest grant opportunities the city may not be aware of or not pursuing.

    For a city where the residents complain of high taxes or suffer from lack of program funding, we should never be in a situation where we have to return money basically given to us for nothing. So I would really like to see the governing body take up the idea of a Grant Status Report/Database by way of an ordinance for inclusion in its December meetings.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The report is a great idea - but do we really need a damned ordinance to have it generated? I would think this would be part of a dashboard report that is prepared monthly and given to the mayor, council etc. Since we haven't had a "professional" may in 8 years maybe the new Mayor will have a list of standard reports that he will request from City Admin and this can be included. These moneys should def not be lost in the future.

      Delete
    2. Yes I think so. It would detail the specific information required and the timing and method for dissemination. I don't think it should be vulnerable to the whim or workload of any particular official. It's really a protection not only for the grantor, but for the public in whose ultimate benefit we receive the grants. There is a fiduciary responsibility to use these fund properly and in a timely fashion.

      Delete
  2. It was embarrassing to see the dirt that Sharon is doing and how her stooges are backing her poor decisions and ignoring the needs of the tax payers. I think Tracy Brown was misinformed if she thinks that hiring seven more Leutenants would not impact our taxes. We would pay them much higher salaries, more in benefits, and when they retire we'll really be taken to the cleaners. Is Tracy using her brain? I know Reid and Greaves weren't using their gray matter at that meeting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think Rev Brown thinks much through, nor do I think she gives much effort to the entire process. Between she and Greaves they appear to give the issues, and ordinances about 5 minutes thought prior to the meetings. For Greaves she is maxed out and exhausted by that point but if the Rev Brown isn't going to put in some effort (and soften the nasty attitude) she should maybe consider resigning her seat so someone that is interested in helping the city progress and take over. The mere fact that she thinks the promotions of 7 police officers in one period isn't going to effect taxpayers is laughable and embarrassing - and ultimately unprofessional.

      Delete
    2. Councilwoman Brown acts like a Reverend on the Council, instead of a Council person. That means she does not represent me, only those who fit into, and agree with her ideas.

      In terms of representation, there are a whole bunch of us about whom she could care less. Thank you, Jerry, for again, putting someone in based on your being able to control them as opposed to someone who understands what being a council member is all about.

      Delete
  3. So let me see if I understand one part of this. The transfer of funds that was requested at the beginning of the evening included two figures for P&R ($27,000 and $9,000)? In these figures are the added costs for the kids basketball program that is in process already - the same program that was going to be shut down for lack of funds - the same shut down that the Council Members (rightfully) got upset about not being told about? Am I really understanding that a transfer of that size to a department known for constant waste and misappropriation of funds didn't draw questions from the council like - Why do you need the additional funds and what happened to the budgeted moneys allocated to the department? Would they just blindly approve and increase in funding like this? Many on the Council think their primary responsibility is to show up and just vote on things when in reality they are elected to actually think, ask questions and inquire on matters - voting on resolutions and ordinances is just the formal end to a process. Greaves is a lost cost with thinking but the rest may want to put the BS aside and start acting in a manner required by the fiduciary responsibility in their trust. And they can give the "fake" outrage a rest too - if you aren't going to have any follow-up on these issues save the theatrics.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Actually now is the time to be planning to make sure the pools are properly repaired for the 2014 season. Turf management for spring baseball and a thousand other little items no one seems to care about until the whole recreation program implodes on itself this summer. Saturday basketball is a minor issue [lets go to the YMCA, Black United Fund, Boy Club, Second Second Street Youth Center and area CYOs/churches with gyms] but really get on the ball about the important things!!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Please forgive me if I came across with a bad attitude.Sometimes my frustration is reflected in my facial expressions. I have been councilwoman at large for 11 months.I am still learning a lot of things and promise to do my best for all the people of plainfield.I do study my packet and call department heads to ask questions.Just because I may disagree with other view points does not make me all the negative names that grown people call me, but that's alright because no weapon formed against me shall prosper.Instead of all the name calling lets pray for each other, our city,and new administration, and watch God change things.Again did not mean to offend anybody.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More thought, less God, please. If God liked our political game-playing we'd be in a different state than we are. God seems like a cheap excuse for some of the antics and decisions being made.

      Delete
    2. Gee, you're the first elected official in Plainfield I can think of who has bothered to reach out to your critics in a sweet way to try to bridge the gap. Thanks.

      Delete
  6. politics 101 never invoke G D in a secular political discourse especially if your elected by the people because unfortunatly you only open up another can of worms i support you and ill pray for guidance and wisdom to be bestowed upon you. a private citizen mr. x

    ReplyDelete
  7. Regarding the budget transfers, I will be writing a more detailed blog post about them. Given the discussion about the police promotions and the subsequent HUGE increase they would bring to our budget in just two months, what got lost in the shuffle were other items. I was not at the agenda session (traffic), so I did not hear the part of the discussion about the reason for the other transfers. For example, why is there a shortfall in the Recreation budget? The answer is that the mayor misappropriated Recreation funds for her fake "Family Fun Day cum Anti-Gang" event--several thousands were spent.

    Another question I have is, why would we have to transfer such a huge amount (tens and tens of thousands of $$$!) to IT and Media?? These divisions have budgets--we (the council) gave them what they said they needed to run this year. What, then, did they blow their budget on? This poor management of taxpayer funds is outrageous! Again, I will post more detailed commentary on my blog.

    Rebecca

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry but sounds like Monday morning quarterbacking. How about all of the council people start watching for this stuff early and avoid all these surprises. Or how about anyone not interested in paying attention resign their seat now and save us the pain. Less blogging and more questions and overs of city spending. Sharon was terrible but in a short period she will be gone and so will the excuses for a lack of progress. Just sayin

      Delete
    2. Pardon me, but the proper place to ask the questions IS the agenda session (and, of course, the business meeting). That is the point of these meetings, to have these questions asked and answered in public view. The fact that the administration had no one there to answer questions, and the mayor herself refused to answer questions is of deep concern.

      Delete
    3. To her credit, Rebecca is one of the few Council members that actually asks questions and tries to keep on top of things. A good deal of blame does rest with the current administration, which has shown through the years a particular bent for not being straight about goings-on in the city, and whose representatives in Council meetings are often incapable of giving answers even when asked. There has been talk of the Council taking on a legislative aide /intern who could sort through issues, field questions from the public, get answers, and so forth. In my estimate that would be a potentially good investment with a high return.

      Delete
  8. Remember when you wear your councilwoman hat to hang your cross at the door, Church and State are to be separated. If not, do the right thing, choose one and leave the other.

    ReplyDelete
  9. A council member should NOT call a department head to get the low down as then it puts the City Employee in giving various answers to 7 persons who all may word the question differently, thereby giving a different slant in the answers. Ask at the Agenda Meetings, DEMAND staff shows up or don't approve payroll payments for them! Be in control but do it the right way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Baloney! You're saying a council person should only request answers once a month? Let them word their questions any which way they want. If it's still an issue, bring them in front of the entire council. The council has the absolute right, and obligation, to get the low down about what goes on in the city. Do you really want to give an administration the leeway to keep mum while it hones its message and a strategy to potentially fake us out? Talk about shirking their responsibility, but your suggestion smacks of just that. Being a liaison or on a committee would be just meaningless.

      Delete