Furious over finding a partial forensic audit was underway, Council President Bridget Rivers threatened to have Mayor Adrian O. Mapp escorted out of Monday's council meeting by police.
As Police Director Carl Riley called in vain for a "time out," Rivers banged her gavel and called the meeting over.
First proposed late last year, the forensic audit was to uncover fraud and waste, in contrast to the annual audit that relies on information provided by the administration and may result in recommendations for better fiscal practices. A forensic audit can produce evidence to be used in court.
Perhaps because it would include the two terms of former Mayor Sharon Robinson-Briggs as well as the first year of Mayor Adrian O. Mapp's term, some saw it as an attempt to embarrass the former mayor, who in 2013 lost her bid for a third term to Mapp, her rival also in 2009. A council majority rejected the forensic audit in December, when it was proposed at a cost of $60,000.
In public comment earlier on Monday, Robinson-Briggs supporter Kim Montford asked whether a forensic audit was taking place without council approval. Rivers asked Finance Director Ron West whether that was true. West said there was no audit taking place, but the the firm Baker Tilly was "doing some work around the city" at a cost under $17,500, which the administration authorized. It had uncovered the fact that $41,000 was unaccounted for in one division, he said.
"Is there a forensic audit going on?" Rivers pressed.
"There is auditing going on," West said.
"There is no forensic audit?" Councilwoman Vera Greaves asked.
"We do have an audit firm in house taking a look at operations," West said.
"That's so disrespectful," Rivers said.
Councilman Cory Storch said he applauded the administration for taking a look, but Rivers said, "We do an audit every year."
She suggested maybe a probe should go back 16 or 20 years, not just eight years.
"That's a true forensic audit - let's go back further," she said.
This is as far as I got last night before the FiOS failed again.
David Rutherford has posted a video of the early discussion regarding the forensic audit. The part where Rivers became angry at Mapp occurred after 10:30 p.m. and was probably captured on the official tape for the local cable channels for broadcast on PCTV..
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Mayor should take her up on the 16 to 20 year offer.
ReplyDeleteAn audit is LOOONG over due. Perhaps it should go back 20 years, but lets start at current and work our way back. It should be done on an annual basis to ensure conformity and protect against loss of taxpayer revenue. If there is no wrong doing by any party, there should be no problem having it done. If someone is against it, perhaps someone is trying to hide something.
ReplyDeleteRivers appears to have been complicate in the shady fiscal activities of the Robinson-Briggs administration. At least her actions at City Council would suggest that. I think it is shameful that the President of the City Council is so unprofessional and rude to the public and other councilors. Ms. Rivers is a councilor responsible for her actions past and present and accountable to the people of Plainfield. Eight years of Sharon have seemed to remove that from some councilors' minds. I hope we get to the bottom of this past illegal activity and the perps. go to jail. I think some past and present members of the City Council should start to worry.
ReplyDeleteSimply amazing. To say that a criminal robbed someone in the past, but since 2 or 3 years have gone by it is OK not to pursue the fact is an astounding attitude. That anger you saw perhaps contained the smell of fear which is a good thing in this case.
ReplyDeleteLet's try and maintain some balance. As much as we might like to there is no process by which we can prosecute the dead,. If we can accomplish an audit for the previous 2 or 3 years the results may dictate whether the audit should proceed to prior years. If Ms.. Rivers feels the audit is disrespectful she should reflect on how disrespectful it is to all the people of Plainfield for her to reject the proposed audit. What does the world outside of Plainfield think of our community when they view this emotional, adolescent conduct on TV.? Every filmed diatribe reduces our property values.
ReplyDelete. Bill Kruse
I hope Sharon runs for mayor. It will be great having all her illegal doings brought to light. And, if Jerry supports her, maybe we will see 2 people on the "perp" walk.
ReplyDeleteFirst - you cannot embarrass SRB.
ReplyDeleteSecond- how does the Council President what a true forensic audit is
Third - An audit has been done every year, and if you look at the findings during the SRB admin, they were always indicating that the fiscal policies encompassed bad practices. Bridget, read the audit findings.
Last, what is disrespectful is the dictatorship attitude the council president has adopted to all those who are not in Jerry's camp with her. She let's no one speak who does not promote Jerry's policies.
What is really sad, is that she is the only one who could garner the votes.
Plainfield is only as good as it is because of this administration. Despite the Jerry fools on the council, we are getting our finances in order, and people are coming to live in Plainfield. Let's hope they are smarter in politics than the ones Jerry picks.
I encourage the Administration to forward any suspicious information on the appropriate authorities for action. Misuse of taxpayer money is a serious issue and it should be dealt with seriously.
ReplyDeleteI thought Council President Rivers made an excellent suggestion about the forensic audit, namely that it should go back 20 years. She makes a very good point. Certainly Plainfield's financial irregularities didn't only happen over the past 10 years. As a taxpayer I'd like to know where the issues were in the past so the City can take measures so they don't happen again in the future. And at a cost of $30,000 to $60,000 the forensic audit would cost less than one tenth of one percent of the City budget, which is a bargain. I am confident the savings from closing financial loopholes will more than recoup the costs. I hope the Administration and the rest of the Council embrace Ms. Rivers' lead on a 20 year forensic audit.
Tom Kaercher
Obviously this is all a mistake as the Democratic Part has been in TOTAL control of the City for 20+ years now. It is only Republicans who are unconcerned about the average person.
ReplyDeleteI did know that there were any Republicans left in Plainfield. I thought the Democrats Green Entitlement Machine ran them all out of town!
DeleteLast night's embarrassing display by the council president should be required viewing on how to be uncivil. It was also theatrical and extremely contrived. The excessive display of "anger" over the fact that the administration is doing an audit that is completely within its purview in terms of executive powers was embarrassing to witness. The council president started yelling and raising her voice and saying that the council said "no" to an audit--showing complete dismissiveness of the idea of separation of powers. She then threatened, as the mayor very calmly attempted to explain the audit to her, to have him escorted out--really??? Her behavior was embarrassing--he was not yelling or being disrespectful--she, however, started to appear seriously unhinged. To be clear, though, the council CANNOT tell the administration what to do with money under the threshold--the council denied the administration funds in the amount of $60,000 for a forensic audit. The city council cannot tell the administration what to do--it certainly didn't during the "Sharon" years--the council has no say in contracts under a certain amount of money. The fact that the administration went forward with its legal prerogative is what made Councilwoman Rivers apoplectic--by this afternoon, people were asking me what the problem was. I said there was no problem--she contrived a great deal of anger, but the angrier she got, the more the meeting moved into the realm of the ridiculous. My colleague has been on the city council longer than everyone except for Councilman Storch--she knows full well that if something is under the threshold, the administration (ANY administration) does NOT have to come to the council for permission. The theatrics were embarrassing--wait until folks see it. Further, I truly wish that SOMEONE would properly explain to Councilwoman Rivers and Councilwoman Taylor the concept of “Point of order.” When a councilor calls for a point of order, all discussion stops. The council president then has to HEAR the objection by the councilor who called for the point of order. AFTER hearing the objection, the council president can deny it, but NOT BEFORE! AJ tried valiantly to explain this to them, but they (perhaps willfully?) refused to hear it, and the council president once again shut down my free speech. She continued to allow Councilwoman Taylor to make ad hominem attacks on me--totally in violation of the rules, and then got mad at me for exercising my free speech rights.
ReplyDeleteI will be blogging about this, as it appears that the blogs are the only places where one can speak freely. I will also be bringing this up with the council president, because she needs to understand what "Point of order" means.
Frankly, I was just calling "Point of order" to get her to calm down. Her histrionics were out of control and, for the residents to witness it, especially when she was completely out of her lane and her depth (as well as in the wrong) was sad. She was so out of control that she banged the gavel even as I was speaking and stormed off, still standing and yelling. As we say, "smh."
Rebecca
Why did you all vote for her to President again?
DeleteBridget's outburst was a clear display of loss of control. She was furious that any kind of audit is being done to uncover waste and fraud. The protectors of Sharon's mismanagement are trying their best to stop the deeper look. Must be something really worthy of shaking in one's boots. In the end Bridget tried to stand by her outburst by explaining a strong council is as strong as their leader and she was being strong. When in fact what she did was show her panic. Strength does not equal disrespect. The Mayor was elected by the citizens of Plainfield and he/the office of mayor should be respected regardless of disagreement. Bridget kept shouting she would not be disrespected and she would not tolerate disrespect. Perhaps she should look up the word or does she think she's the only one who should be respected. As she is an elected official by one ward she should be respected even though she has been very disrespectful to not only her colleagues but this Administration and even the public. Learning respect is a fundamental that should have been learned a long time ago.
ReplyDeleteBut it is an interesting situation that she and her cronies are fighting so hard to NOT find the fraud and waste. "Methinks she doth protest too much".
well..... she proved who she's working for.. way to go Rivers for removing all doubt, tell your bosses Sharon and Jerry they are not missed .. Kudos on showing how a mature adult in charge of a civic meeting should NOT behave,
ReplyDeleteThey don't teach civility in 12 step programs?
ReplyDeleteRivers is an embarrassment. She needs help. She does not know what respect is.
ReplyDeleteMayor Mapp was making a valid case for the forensic audit - questions by Councilor President Rivers and Councilor Storch actually helped Mapp make his point as to why the audit was necessary (though they might have been moot as this was quite possibly dead on arrival again).
ReplyDeleteBut what puzzles me is why supporters of the Mayor would bring up past shortcomings of the previous administration. This only infuriates the previous Mayors allies on the dais (and in the audience) and intensifies their resolve to squash the proposal.
This is strictly a personal matter. As you said, this infuriates the previous Mayors allies. However, this should not be about a person who was mayor, it should be about possible fraud being committed in the Mayor's (any mayor's) office.
DeleteWhat puzzles me is why the council has no problem with giving taxpayers' money to a charitable organization, which is illegal, but has no care that people may be breaking the law and taxpayers may be able to recoup some money.
Well, I guess when you either don't pay taxes or PMUA, it doesn't matter to them.
It’s apparent that gavel and elevated seat has gone to her head causing reality to escapes her. She must think the entire city of Plainfield voted her in as some kind of leader. My dear Bridget, if you wanted to be Mayor why didn’t you run for the seat. The fact is, you were elected by a small section of voters in Plainfield, you are not the Mayor and whatever leader you claim to be is a total disgrace. Have some respect for the Mayor and the citizens of Plainfield that voted him into office. I am in full support for a forensic audit, over the last 12 years my mortgage has increased over $400 due to an increase in taxes. If there was any misappropriations of tax payers money I want to know about it.
ReplyDeleteRebecca, I wouldn’t worry to much about Bridget and her lack of knowledge of RROO, maybe she lacks reading comprehension. It’s really not her fault if she doesn’t comprehend.
KS
Here's what is most bothersome regarding the excessive theatricality of the tantrums--they serve to deflect from the REAL story--the $41,000.00 of 2010 taxpayers' money that is unaccounted for.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, lost in all that stupidity was the fact that $41,000.00 of 2010 Plainfield taxpayers' money was discovered to be MISSING! That is what a forensic audit is for, folks--to MAKE SURE THAT YOUR MONEY ISN'T BEING STOLEN, WASTED, OR FRAUDULENTLY USED!
The fact that the council president did not address this speaks volumes. All the blathering about "disrespect" and "transparency" was so much nonsense. Instead of all that anger, she should have been THANKING the administration for fulfilling a promise to get to the bottom of the fiscal irregularities!
$41,000.00.
Instead, we get huffing and puffing and ridiculous, totally out of line and out of order threats to remove the mayor, who was sitting very respectfully, trying to explain the process of the forensic audit, as well as trying to explain to the council president what the statutes say about the various thresholds for bids, contracts, and purchase orders. The fact that she escalated her anger to try and contrive a way to have the police escort him out shows that she was not interested in the actual FINDING of $41,000.00 of possible WASTE/FRAUD?THEFT from 2010.
$41,000.00
Otherwise, why would she not have APPLAUDED the administration for its efforts??? Why are some of my colleagues so opposed to the administration exercising its prerogative in creating and maintaining the fiscal integrity of our city? The FACT of the matter is that the city council and its president cannot dictate to the administration whether it can do a forensic audit. That is what the council president was so mad at. Again, if folks see the meeting, and then hear the commentary, they will probably end up scratching their heads and wondering why anyone in this city would be angry about a forensic audit, given the previous administration's mismanagement--remember the $2 million budget mistake from a couple of years ago? Remember the well over $1 million shortfall from some years back? Remember the fake contracts for vendor permits that were being run out of the Recreation Division in 2012??
$41,000.00
My God. Honest, ethical leadership demands that we clean up the waste, fraud, and abuse of the past.
Rebecca
And where do you believe honest, ethical leadership is on the council? Obviously, per Gloria Taylor, you have a hidden agenda. Perhaps you should ask Gloria, "I am loyal to Jerry Green, and he is loyal to me" Taylor, about honest ethical leadership as she has no hidden agenda.
Delete$41,000.00 and that's just from the limited audit. Can you imagine if they received the full amount to really take a look? No wonder the led-counselors are trying to stop it. $41,000.00 is not just smoke. That's a fire.
ReplyDeleteAnd these Democratic's complain about Christie ?????
ReplyDelete