An anticipated consensus to move PMUA nominations to the Dec. 8 agenda fell through at Monday's City Council meeting, with some members citing the need for a state investigation to play out first.
Mayor Adrian O. Mapp submitted two nominations, Wilbert Gill to replace PMUA Chairman Harold Mitchell for an unexpired term to Feb. 1, 2016 and Mitchell to fill a vacant alternate's seat for a term ending Feb. 1, 2015. The council last month tabled the nomination of Michelle Graham-Lyons to replace Malcolm Dunn for a term ending Feb.1, 2019.
Councilwoman Tracey Brown asked that the tabled nomination not be moved to the agenda, because she wanted to wait for results of the investigation. Council President Bridget Rivers said she could have put all the names on the agenda, but wanted to hear from her colleagues regarding the PMUA.
"I for one would love to see some change over there," Rivers said.
Councilwomen Vera Greaves and Gloria Taylor also said they wanted to wait for the investigation, but Councilwoman Rebecca Williams said it was not the council's role to investigate anything regarding the PMUA, just to give advice and consent to mayoral nominations.
The apparent block spurred pleas from Mapp and City Administrator Rick Smiley to proceed with the appointments for the sake of reforming the PMUA, but they received no support.
Councilman William Reid said he didn't think Graham-Lyons was qualified to be a PMUA commissioner. When Smiley cited her extensive experience in finance, Reid said, "But you're not convincing me, sir."
As the discussion went on, Councilman Cory Storch arrived and asked, "What happened?"
Rivers said, "You have to count four," meaning there was no majority on the seven-member body to move the nominations, so there was no point in putting them on the agenda.
"What's changed?" Storch asked, having been under the impression that there were four votes. ""Who changed their mind? I think we are allowed an explanation."
He said when Mapp was council president, reasons for not putting items on the agenda were clearly explained.
"We already explained," Taylor said. "He came in late."
Williams said what was not stated was why the names were not accepted as qualified to serve on the PMUA. Brown said she had nothing against the nominees, but having done research on some projects and contracts going on at the PMUA, she felt they should be finished before any changes.
Corporation Counsel Vernita Sias-Hill said contracts at the authority are "purely administrative" and under authority law the PMUA's governing body cannot be involved in those contracts. Brown then cited "other things" that will save taxpayers money. Taylor also alluded obliquely to "things" she wanted before voting.
"The council's role is advice and consent," Williams reiterated. "All the bloviating we just heard is not helpful."
Storch spoke of the investigation into payment to two retired employees and "two folks who voted 'yes' to that settlement," naming Dunn and Cecil Sanders. He wished they would just step aside, as there was going to be a "very embarrassing situation."
One of the settlement recipients, former PMUA Executive Director Eric Watson, was sitting in the front row of the meeting room, as he is now director of Public Works & Urban Development, the title he held before formation of the authority in 1995.
Rivers said she did not see anything positive going on at the PMUA and noted the discussion "just wasted half an hour of our time."
With that, the council moved on to other business.
--Bernice
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Councilwoman Tracey Brown received thousands in illegal compensation while a PMUA commissioner, and the Authority made material misstatements in its financial statements regarding Section 203B (the Solid Waste lease) of the Inter Local Agreement during the time Councilman Bill Reid sat on the Board. For these reasons both councilors should be recusing themselves from any discussions or actions involving PMUA. Their conflicts of interest are obvious and significant.
ReplyDeleteMost iterations of the City Council have been impotent in the face of the PMUA behemoth. But as provided in the City's charter, " The council may make investigations into the affairs of the city and the conduct of any city department, office, commission or agency and for this purpose may subpoena witnesses, administer oaths, take testimony and require the production of evidence." But I'm not holding my breath with this weak-kneed and conflicted bunch. The 1998 and ongoing fraud of the absent Solid Waste Lease and non-existent Revenue Sharing was meant to keep PMUA unaccountable and inscrutable. This Council, like others preceding it, is living up to its side of the bargain.
Alan no one received any illegal anything this is only an obsession theory in your head.When someone gets a job and is offered health insurance by their employer do they say ,no thank you it is illegal, really? It has already been researched that the health insurance received by the commissioners are Not ILLEGAL.One of the commissioners is a lawyer and she is smarter than you.Even if they were not entitled to the health insurance( which the courts have deemed appropriate) it still would not be illegal, just a costly mistake by their employer.Again, who starts a job and is given health insurance and says no thank you it is illegal? Really?
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to argue with your foolishness. The facts have been put out there, the ordinance limits compensation to $4,500, $27,000 or $17,000 is not $4,500, and by now it is just theft. For $300 in billings, PMUA's legal counsel whipped up a few pages of pure fabrication. The illegal practice has been enabled by two executive directors, Eric Watson and now Dan Williamson, and they, along with PMUA's lawyers and auditor, need to be out of public employ in this city. You make statements, but have nothing to back it up but the unbounded tolerance for corruption and self-dealing that are a keystone of our Jerry Green-led political structure, and Leslie London's fakery. Surely Ms. Brokaw is smarter than that, but she is in so deep with her portion of the take that there doesn't seem to be any going back.
DeleteThe "research" to which you refer is, I presume, the verbose report written by Leslie London Esq., regarding this subject. The best she could come up with is that since the IRS has ruled that certain categories of compensation are not subject to Federal Tax, that this particular compensation, that is the sums paid by the employer for Health Benefits do not constitute "compensation". This is ludicrous on the face of it. To reiterate, it IS COMPENSATION albeit not taxable compensation. The Statute which established the PMUA unambiguously states that the Commissioners shall not receive any compensation in excess of $4500.00 per year.
DeleteIt is true that one of the Commissioners is an attorney. She happen to be one of the two who continue to receive this ILLEGAL compensation in the form of a health care package. Mr. Williamson is also an attorney. There is a third fulltime attorney employed in house. Ms. London is the ever present outside attorney. In a past review of PMUA records it was observed that one year the PMUA paid substantial fees to no less than 4 other legal firms for consulting. The PMUA is awash in attorneys and legal advice. Why do they need all this I wonder? I agree that these combined efforts produce a result that is smarter than Alan Goldstein, myself and all the other 49,998 people of Plainfield. They are smarter because they continue to obtain substantial benefits to which they are not entitled. The fact that the Commissioners have determined that going forward no replacement Commissioners will receive the Health benefits is a tacit confession that they acknowledged the illegality of the past program. Why else would they terminate the benefits? Mr. Neff from the State Agency conducting the audit has stated that the compensation package is illegal.
Bill Kruse
Mr. Kruse
DeleteCan you provide us with a copy of the Audit that Mr. Neff from the State Agency stated that the compensation package is illegal"? Of course you can't. Someone needs to report you to the State for lying on Mr. Neff
Anonymous 3:08- A recent appeals court decision in the case of Northwest Bergen MUA vs. Donovan found that health benefits, which the MUA had been paying its commissioners for approximately 10 years, had never been authorized by Bergen's freeholders. Additionally, a $5,000 stipend commissioners had been receiving had only been approved for the initial group of commissioners in 1979.
DeleteThe court found "First, we do not read the 1979 resolution as authorizing a stipend to the commissioners in perpetuity. The resolution authorized the annual stipend of $5,000 to only those commissioners identified in the resolution, none of whom is still in office. It is undisputed the freeholders never passed a resolution authorizing a stipend to any commissioners other than those set forth in the 1979 resolution. Second, the freeholders never passed any resolution authorizing health care benefits for the commissioners, and N.J.S.A. 40:14B-17 clearly states that no member of any municipal authority shall receive compensation except as provided in this statute. Therefore, in order for those commissioners who were in office at the time of the executive's veto to be eligible for a stipend or health care benefits, a resolution had to have been passed or an ordinance adopted authorizing such compensation."
In our case here in Plainfield the situation is a little different- there is no question about the $4,500, just the unauthorized additional benefits compensation. Substitute our City Council for Bergen's freeholders as the responsible party.
An email regarding the decision in Northwest Bergen was sent by me to Mr. Kruse and others, including Mr. Neff, Mayor Mapp, Council President Rivers, and Corporation Counsel Sias-Hill. Mr. Neff replied to all the recipients on Sept. 19th, writing "To be clear, DLGS expects compensation to be lawfully established. Bill Clinton-esque definitions of compensation where "health benefits don't count" wont be accepted by the Division as reasonable. That position will be incorporated in future budget examinations."
The pertinent portion, of course, is that DLGS "expects compensation to be lawfully established", which in PMUA's case it has not been. It's not quite an outright declaration of illegality, but it'll do for the moment, especially with the recent court decision. Or you can buy the Brooklyn Bridge from Leslie London at McManimon & Scotland, the same attorneys that said the PMUA would pay the City a $2.3 million Solid Waste Lease in fiscal 1998.
Dear Anonymous
DeleteI did not refer to the interminable PMUA audit which has not as yet been presented. What I referred to is the Agencies findings with regard to Passaic Valley in which similar "compensation" was deemed to be illegal and was terminated. I assume that this opinion will be consistent with what is forthcoming in the Plainfield audit report. If you would like to call Mr. Neff I would appreciate it as I have a great deal of material which I have assembled over the last several years and which I would like to show him. Let me caution you though, if I am indicted the law will require you to identify yourself as a the accused has the right to know his accuser.
Bill Kruse
Why isn't the city's attorney asking for Brown and Reid to recuse themselves?
ReplyDeleteI was starting to get some respect for Councilwoman Brown, but I really don't care for her joining the others in blocking the nominations, as it is very obvious that the PMUA need change. Waiting for some projects to be finished doesn't matter. I don't have any respect for other council members as they seem to work for someone else, certainly not the people of Plainfield. It is interesting that mistakes some members of the City Council made, like cutting $400,000 from the budget which is needed now, get glossed over. I'm also concerned about how much time the councilors take to be prepared for the Council meetings. I know it is a difficult job and time consuming, but are they only doing this so someone will get the a well paying job at a later date? If you're not willing to put in the time, then get out!
ReplyDeleteThankfully there are no Republicans to slow things up or stop this one way ride to ______ [you fill in the blank]
ReplyDeleteGloria Taylor is one of the biggest joke yet that sit on the City Council. The Green machine did Plainfield a favor when he appointed her to the board. She s making the gang of 5 look crazy. It hilarious
ReplyDeleteShe was elected so get it right.
DeleteBob, I agree with most of what you said, but Brown did say she will eventually vote in favor of his appointees, we will see.
ReplyDeleteso... there's a problem... we understand that... we just refuse to do anything about it...
ReplyDelete.... Ok... I guess.. I mean.. uhhh. in a weird Plainfield Political kick-back scheme sort of way... Hey.. I don't mind someone getting a free swimming pool if I'm allowed to swim in it.. ya know what I'm sayin !!! Can we all be invited to the BBQ at least ???