Once again, Mayor Adrian O. Mapp is seeking City Council confirmation of Thomas Crownover to represent Plainfield on the regional sewerage authority, this time while also asking to put the city, not the Plainfield Municipal Utilities Authority, in charge of the appointment.
Mapp has put Crownover's name up to serve on the PMUA several times without success. The nomination now is for a five-year term succeeding David Ervin as representative to the Plainfield Area Regional Sewerage Authority, which serves eight municipalities in conveying sewer flow to the Middlesex County Utilities Authority for treatment.
Crownover's nomination was proposed earlier this month but withdrawn due to a conflict over the appointing entity. A proposed ordinance amendment would change language in the Municipal Code which now says the PMUA's director or a PMUA commissioner must serve on the PARSA board. The amendment would bring the code into conformance with the city' charter.
However, the ordinance amendment would have to pass on two readings, meaning it would not take effect until March, so it appears Crownover would not be eligible until then. In addition, if the change is disputed by PMUA attorney Leslie London, there could be further delay for Crownover's nomination. Perhaps the timing will be explained Monday.
The agenda-fixing session Monday is 7:30 p.m. in Municipal Court, 325 Watchung Ave,
Plaintalker has often reminded the public that an archive exists on the blog. It can be checked by putting a keyword in the box at the upper left. If you are so inclined, you can review all the posts on Crownover by putting his name in the box. With this post, you will see 16 stories in all. Take a look.
--Bernice
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
There is chance of catching a moonbeam in a jar than there is getting the PMUA to release their grip on their ability to control this position. For all those who have never agreed with me, here is an opportunity to make me look foolish by endorsing the Mayor's nominee.
ReplyDeleteBill Kruse
You are absolutely correct. Why should the PMUA release this position? If they did release it, it wouldn't be to someone that is promoting dissolution of the PMUA. They would be foolish. Why do you think he has been put up multiple times for the PMUA board and has not made it? He is definitely the wrong person.
ReplyDeleteMr. Crownover signed his death warrant when he, along with the committee representing every District in Plainfield, unanimously agreed that the PMUA's rates are exorbitant. The Board of Commissioners does not have the ability to dissolve the Authority.. This can only be done by the City Council. The prospect of this occurring is somewhere between non-existent and none. The reasons that cried out for his appointment, and the appointments of the others whom were rejected, are that they were of good character, experienced in their respective professions, and given these commendable traits might well have offered advice which would have improved the operations resulting in Rate reductions. This welcome result would inure the benefit of both the population and the PMUA rank and file. What you are afraid of is not dissolution, rather discovery. No audits, no looking under the sheets or into dark closets. Mr. Crownover's nomination to PARSA places him outside the perimeter of PMUA affairs. Your position seems to be that anyone with whom the current establishment disagrees can not play ball in their ball park. What you forget is that the park belongs to the people, not exclusively to the Jerry Green League.....or it should. This is the inevitable consequence of the the one party, one click hegemony. that exists. Last , but not least, and I suspect this is irrelevant to you, there are benefits which are derived form establishing a comity between the Council and the administration. It is frequently embarrassing to watch the Council meetings. Bill Kruse.
DeleteIt makes sense to me that a top PMUA official, either a commissioner or the executive director, is the City's representative to PARSA. Plainfield is PARSA's largest municipal component. It also is clear the nomination is still the mayor's to make, with the approval of City Council. The limitation alone (commissioner or executive director) is not a conflict with the Charter. It's in the contract between the City and PMUA, the Inter Local Agreement, and amending it would require a parallel resolution of both governing bodies. But unlike the conspiracy to defraud that surrounded the reversal of cash flows and the elimination of the Solid Waste Lease which was done secretly and without legal authority, we should be asking that any PARSA rep change be done properly and above board. As for Mr. Crownover, he would be fine on PARSA, and better yet on the PMUA board. His serial rejection by the City Council had nothing to do with his capabilities. It was always political, and singularly focused on permitting continuing PMUA abuses and deflecting any scrutiny that would be in the public interest.
ReplyDeleteAlan explain the cash reversal.
DeleteThanks for asking. The financial portion of the Inter Local Agreement centers around two lease payments PMUA is to make to the City, one the Sewer Lease, the other the Solid Waste Lease. It also includes a provision for Revenue Sharing. Beginning in 1998 the City began mischaracterizing the Sewer Lease as non-existent Revenue Sharing, and gave PMUA direct access to $1.2 million that was supposed to be set aside by the City so it could pay the direct disposal costs generated by the Transfer Station which it owned but was operated by PMUA. There has never been a Solid Waste Lease payment, though the public was told it would be $2.3 million in fiscal 1998. On January 1, 1998 then-City Council President Malcolm Dunn insisted that the City was paying PMUA nothing for operations, a point supposedly confirmed by then-Administration and Finance Director Thomas Morrison who stated that the last payment to PMUA by the City had been in the summer of 1997. By secretly and unlawfully eliminating PMUA's obligation to make the Solid Waste Lease payment, and handing over taxpayer money in its place, the Authority was able to book considerable sums and improve its financial standing ahead of bond offerings in 1999 and 2003, by which point it had nearly $22.6 million in outstanding debt, a sum far beyond its immediate cash needs. Since 1998, PMUA has incurred roughly $10 million in net interest expense.
DeleteYou can read more about the cash flow reversal and the elimination of the Solid Waste Lease at this link- https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-51dYlart-_SzdMQktVUGFmakU/view?pli=1
Alan it is scary that you know all of that. I really feel sorry for you, not because you do your research and have answers,but because you do research and have answers.There is a real world out there Alan.
ReplyDeleteI agree. He doesn't even own a house in Plainfield. He is not even paying a PMUA bill. Makes one wonder why he is so concerned?
DeleteThe issue isn't me, Anonymous 1 and 2, it's PMUA. You should wish your elected and appointed officials spent the time doing basic research and actually reading the materials and ordinances they vote on. I guarantee you PMUA has spent much more time and your money figuring out ways to deceive and keep its gravy train rumbling. Over 50% of Plainfield residents rent, but 100% of Plainfield residents pay for PMUA's high rates, whether they rent, own a home, or even opt out. If you think the facts are wrong, then spell out your objections. Deflecting the issue to whether one rents or owns is not a very strong defense. Hiding behind anonymity doesn't make it any more so.
Delete