Tyndale is nominated to replace holdover Commissioner Alex Toliver, for a term expiring Feb. 1, 2017. This was one of the terms that former Mayor Sharon Robinson-Briggs wanted to use to lengthen the tenure of Malcolm Dunn and Cecil Sanders. She wanted to shift Dunn from a term that just expired on Feb.1 of this year and tried to move Sanders from a term that expires on Feb. 1, 2015. On Jan. 27, the council did approve one nomination, for Carol Ann Brokaw to succeed herself for a term ending Feb. 1 2017.
If Tyndale's appointment goes through, it would secure the other longest term on the board.
Here is SRB's failed plan:
current
|
Term
|
proposed
|
Alex Toliver (holdover)
|
2017
|
Malcolm Dunn
|
Carol Ann Brokaw (holdover)
|
2017
|
Cecil Sanders
|
Harold Mitchell (holdover)
|
2016
|
Barbara James
|
Cecil Sanders
|
2015
|
Carol Ann Brokaw
|
Malcolm Dunn
|
2014
|
Alex Toliver
|
Charles Eke
|
Alt 1 2015
|
Charles Eke
|
vacant
|
Alt 2 2015
|
Jeffrey R. Burke
|
The PMUA board is scheduled to meet at 6 p.m.on Feb. 11 at 127 Roosevelt Avenue to reorganize. Sanders, who joined the board as an alternate in November 2011 and became a full commissioner succeeding Tracey Brown in January 2013, is the current chairman. Depending what happens at next Monday's council meeting, Toliver, the current vice-chairperson, could be off the board. Dunn, the current treasurer, will stay on the board as a holdover. Brokaw is the current secretary.
Here are posts on the 2012 Reorganization and 2013 Reorganization. The PMUA has gone through a lot of changes and maybe Feb. 11 will bring about more.
Meanwhile, it was interesting just now to come across a memo from Executive Director Dan Williamson on the PMUA web site. Williamson seeks to set the record straight on a recently announced wage freeze. This memo is part of a move to encourage the public to go directly to the web site for PMUA information rather than hearing things from bloggers and their ilk. The web site is at pmua.info
--Bernice
Executive Director Williamson's memo is a good example of the "propaganda" Commissioner Toliver called for at PMUA's most recent meeting last month. Taken point for point, however, it should leave city residents with little comfort.
ReplyDeleteTrue, PMUA has reined in many excesses in the last several years, some as a result of heightened outside scrutiny, some as concessions to the Charles's lawsuit in 2010, and some as acknowledgement of the incompetence of previous top management who grew the Authority to unsustainable levels of headcount and largesse. For the latter, these executives were rewarded with a $1 million payout.
True, PMUA is supremely loyal to its employees and displays a marked interest in workforce stability. So much so that headcount is still excessive, thereby necessitating actions such as the wage freeze to balance things out.
Yes, healthcare costs go up every year, impacting all sorts of businesses, but this has not prevented PMUA from continuing its practice of illegally compensating some commissioners with a compensation package nearly five times greater than the legally-imposed limitation specified in the City's administrative code. Over the years, this compensation has cost nearly as much as the controversial settlement.
Yes, spending on capital projects and equipment costs money. But these costs should be amortized over the useful life of the assets, and while the costs may be significant, they should be spread out and provide a net benefit, only modestly impacting current rates. Comparing the Authority's assumption of debt to its capital spending leaves many questions as to the integrity of the capital assets previously purchased.
Disposal costs have increased. They have, of course, yet the increases should be reflected in the City budget as well, according to the Inter Local Agreement, where they can be seen and validated. The immediate corruption of the agreement in 1998 prevented this. Contracting with other municipalities exacerbated the situation, leading to a lawsuit with one of the disposal outlets, and placing PMUA in the untenable position of charging less than it was costing them for disposal.
The PMUA's sewer lease payment to the City escalates annually based on a predetermined cost index. It does. It's spelled out in the ILA. The City budget calls it Revenue Sharing, masking the absence of revenue sharing as actually defined in the agreement. This deception began in 1998, ten weeks after the ILA became effective.
The City's payment for solid waste services is frozen. Does it even make sense that PMUA pays the City on the sewer end, but the City pays PMUA on the solid waste end? No it doesn't, and in fact, there is no contractual agreement for this payment. It is at the heart of the original corruption of the ILA as noted above, reversed the direction of cash flow between City and Authority, severed the umbilical cord of transparency and accountability, and opened the door to many of the outrages in the years following. Not that PMUA is solely to blame, this was a joint conspiracy between the parties to defraud everyone.
Does the PMUA prefer a wage freeze to other employee related cost containment measures? Williamson says it does, but this is disingenuous, as PMUA has already tried all the others since its headcount peaked in 2010.
So much for the new age of PMUA-sponsored "propaganda". The public may buy it, as every City Council iteration seems to have thus far (Councilwoman Taylor, are you listening?). But the net effect is the very reason Trenton is now conducting an in-depth audit, whose findings may be more chilling than what we see on the streets today, and far less pretty.
So why did Mapp nominate last week three others, Kaercher, Anderson and Crownover, all of whom have publicly called for dissolution of the PMUA and aggressive investigation of the executive staff and commissioners? Mapp had to know they would not be confirmed by those councilors who have voted in the current commissioners, not to mention by the councilor who actually was a commissioner in the recent, controversial past.
ReplyDeleteWere those nominations window dressing to appease the anti-PMUAers? Were they to allow the council to save face before they pass the one nominee who actually has a chance of being confirmed? Was it just hubris thinking he could charm the others unto the board? Whichever tactic, let's see if it works.
Having followed the PMUA scenario with some intensity for the last 5 years I can attest that 3 of the 4 nominees have never to my knowledge advocated dissolution. I can also say that all of them are people of commendable character, and intelligence, possessing backgrounds that are exceptionally suitable to the job. My endorsement may render them even less desirable to the Council...for which I apologize. It appears that the only way to be endorsed is to have an umbilical cord to the Democratic Committee or the City coffers. The Council apparently wants only those who do not challenge, rather, accept the PMUA operations as they stand as a fait accompli, Those who want to look under the sheets with an eye to improvement are summarily rejected.
ReplyDeleteWhether Mayor Mapp concocted a Machiavellian plot in order to obtain one seat seems like a stretch. It is my opinion that it was his hope that all 4 of his well qualified new nominees would garner approval.
After studying the locations of the operations and OPRA'ing scores of documents I offer the following suggestions fot the PMUA consideration.
1. Consolidate locations.Sell the Roosevelt Avenue property and relocate at a trailer compound to be constructed at Rock Avenue. Without study the Commissioners have rejected this out of hand.
2. Move out of the overpriced offices at 203 Park Avenue. It is my contention that these personnel can also be quartered at Rock Avenue. If not there is an abundance of rental space in Plainfield available at significantly lesser cost tah is currently being paid. Not only was this property leased above market from inception, but as the market continued to depreciate the PMUA continued to pay unwarranted rent escalations. Why?
3. The payroll is the big ticket item. About 4 years ago yielding to political pressure the PMUA hired a large number of people. It is my belief that many of these jobs are superfluous and can be eliminated through attrition and retirement. That in, say, 3 to 4 years, the number of employees can be reduced to previous level, without a loss of service and resulting in substantial rate reductions.
4 Purchasing policy is hard to get a handle on. However, recently 12 bid solicitations went out for a major piece of equipment..valued at about $175,000. Only 1 vendor submitted a proposal? When the acceptance resolution was placed before the
Commissioner body, not one Commissioner raised a question as to why there was only one response. No authority with whom I have ever dealt, and in my employment I have dalt with many, would have accepted this result without question.The appropriate thing to have done would have been for the Commissioners themselves to appoint one of their number to call the 11 non-responders and asked them why they declined to participate. The question remains open.
5. In reviewing the vendor files at the PMUA office several years ago it could be seen that the numebr of vendors was inordinately high I believe one year they paid 4 real Estate agencies consulting fees. For what? There were no less than 4 law firms in addition the regular services of Leslie London, Esq. engaged at various times for a variety of matters. The engineering and accounting services are awarded annually without eliciting competitive prices. If any private company used consultants, advisors, to baby sit them they way the PMUA uses outside services the outfit would be bankrupt. All of this needs to be reviewed with an eye toward winnowing this down to a realistic level and perhaps teaching the existing staff to perform many of these functions themselves..\6. Managing the outfit to avoid a continuing stream of litigation and employee settlements, which by the way exceed in number those which are commonly known, would be an immediate objective.
Bill Kruse
They may be good people but the record regarding dissolution is very clear:
DeleteCrownover and Anderson were on the PMUA Task Force, whose unambiguous, number one bullet point, all caps, bold, underlined was: DISSOLUTION. (Ptalker2, 3/20/12)
"Among comments from the public, Tom Kaercher called dissolution "absolutely" the answer."
Thomas Kaercher's letter to the City Council (PT2, 2/15/12
"There is no end in sight to PMUA’s abuse of the ratepayers." "The only thing the City is empowered to do to rein-in the PMUA is dissolve it." "...please take the necessary steps to dissolve the PMUA."
Crownover: (PT2, 4/7/11)
“You folks ought to know how easy it is to dissolve” an authority, said Crownover, the executive director of one in Metuchen who has seen another disbanded. “It isn’t that hard, it’s just a matter of desire.”
“You can rid us of this menace,” resident Tom Kaercher said. “We as residents hate this albatross around our necks.”"
There is little question that dissolving the PMUA by transferring the Sewer Division back to the City after securing private services for municipal clean up and returning household collection to the private enterprise would be significantly less costly.i have never accepted the much touted position that the only way to keep Plainfield clean is to have a PMUA. Thousands of American cities have clean streets absent a municipal authority. The Bond Debt, which is currently guaranteed by the City is being paid down through the fees charged by the PMUA. The debt obligation would be no more or less. The debt would be assumed by the City and charged to the taxpayers through their taxes. The difference would be that the taxpayers would receive an exemption on their taxes which they do not now receive. In addition by returning to private haulers the total cost of services would be reduced resulting in a win win for every household..
DeleteThe Sewage personnel would retain their jobs and all other personnel would be dismissed. BUT, it isn't going to happen. I think that most citizens are willing to pay a premium to the PMUA for the social benefits derived by the community, as contrasted to the above Dissolution option, provided the premium were reasonable. If we assume that there are 150 employees in the PMUA and each employes employment benefits 4 other people, the arithmetic is simple. 600 people are benefiting and 49,400 are paying the freight. That said, the reality is PMUA is not going to be dissolved. The Nominees understand this. Regardless of their prior comments they would strive to make the PMUA the efficient organization it could be. It seems the only acceptable candidate is one that is amenable to the status quo.... a don't rock the boat person. As one person commentated, "2013 was the best year ever, if its working why change anything" If a wage freeze and no rate reduction is symptomatic of the "Best year" I tremble to think what the consequences might be of a bad year. Good luck Mr. Tyndale.
Bill Kruse
Two questions:
ReplyDelete1. Will Ms Brokaw continue to receive her benefits package consisting of family Medical, Dental etc. or will she be subject to the revised policy that no new members of the Board of Commissioners will receive this illegal benefit?
2. Referencing the rant presented at the prior Council meeting regarding the 2013 profitability of the PMUA.."Best year ever": When will the subscribers be awarded to benefits in the form of reduced rates? How does the fact that this was "The best year ever ", comport with wage freeze? Where has all the money gone? Could dollar volume be confused with profit?
Let's hope the Council approves this nomination. Something's got to change at the PMUA!
ReplyDelete