CORPORATION NOTICE
CITY OF PLAINFIELD
NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING
PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 2, SECTION 2:2-10(A) OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF THE CITY OF PLAINFIELD, 1971, A SPECIAL MEETING IS HEREBY CALLED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF PLAINFIELD AT 7 O’CLOCK P.M. ON MONDAY, MARCH 9, 2015 AT THE MUNICIPAL COURT – COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 325 WATCHUNG AVENUE, CITY OF PLAINFIELD, FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. EXECUTIVE SESSION - TO DISCUSS PERSONNEL MATTERS INVOLVING THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORK & URBAN DEVELOPMENT.
2. POSSIBLE CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPROVAL TO AWARD A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT TO CONDUCT AN AUDIT WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS & URBAN DEVELOPMENT.
FORMAL ACTION MAY BE TAKEN.
Investigator Mapp,
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteCan you say: Con$ultant$ ??
In order to maintain the public safety we must bear the cost of a police department. In order to prevent the misappropriation of public funds we must from time to time conduct an audit and pay for the service. It is unlikely that the initiative to conduct an audit arises from some arbitrary whim. It is more probable that there is some basis for this initiative. Let's give Mayor Mapp the courtesy of withholding the sarcasm until we learn what has prompted this recommendation.
ReplyDeleteIn the meantime if you want an example of wanton waste of public money you can again look to the conduct our PMUA. The Commissioners denied the departing Chief Financial Officer, who had served competently for 17 years, his separation stipend. The payment was an unambiguous stipulation in the CFO's Employment Agreement. The CFO was to receive 1 month's pay for each year of service. It was an identical provision to those contained in Mr. Watson's and Mr. Ervin's Employment Agreements. Watson and Ervin were paid without hesitation. PS: Watson and Ervin also were paid another million dollars which was not part of any agreement.. The CFO sued the Authority and the Commissioners individually to obtain the money denied. What ensued was 2 years of costly and time consuming litigation to the detriment of all parties. After discovery and failed mediation the presiding judge rattled some clocks and clearly indicated that the PMUA was in an awkward position. On reflection the PMUA yielded to what was anticipated to be a lost cause and settled with the CFO by paying him his rightful money. This capricious and ill advised conduct cost the PMUA a cool $68,000 in wasted legal fees. To those of you who want to rant and rave here is something to get your incisors into. Bill Kruse
Could be Recreation although I think the present audit involves that division,there is a likelihood that this involves the Division of Economic Development. We may never know unless there is a good birdie
ReplyDelete