The professional roster, including legal counsel and engineering firms, was up for approval at the authority's annual reorganization in February, but the resolutions were tabled. The firm of McManimon & Scotland has served the authority since its inception. There have also been only been two executive directors, Eric Watson and Dan Williamson, and two chief financial officers, James Perry and Duane Young, in the authority's 20-year history. Young also served briefly as interim executive director.
Williamson's three-year contract expires in June.
The air of change began with approval last year of Mayor Adrian O. Mapp's nominee Charles Tyndale to replace holdover Commissioner Alex Toliver on the eve of the 2014 PMUA reorganization. This year, at a special meeting on Jan. 26, Mapp nominees Henry Robinson and Michelle Graham-Lyons won council approval to replace holdovers Cecil Sanders and Malcolm Dunn, respectively. Tyndale became chairman at this year's reorganization.
Toliver, Sanders and Dunn gave the three votes necessary to approve a controversial settlement with Watson and his second-in-command, David Ervin, in 2012.
The new commissioners had many questions for Williamson and the PMUA staff Thursday regarding personnel issues, purchases and operating policies. The board agreed to authorize purchase of new equipment to handle increased volume at the Rock Avenue transfer station, which is now receiving bulky waste and vegetative waste from several other municipalities in a bid to increase revenues.
The board also approved a contract for recycling services with Waste Management, which will pay $5 per ton. The authority formerly was receiving $40 per ton, but when the market for recyclables changed, the authority first had to pay $5 per ton for removal of recyclables and later paid $10 per ton..
A proposal to pay $60,000 for an agreement to provide printers and related equipment prompted Tyndale to remark that "because of the flux" the board should hold off on purchases and hiring.
The commissioners may have to hold a special meeting in April to deal with the delayed contracts or may reschedule its regular monthly meeting in order to combine it with a special meeting.
--Bernice
Interesting hold off on hiring as opposed to layoffs?
ReplyDeleteI applaud the Board's apparent new-found willingness for change, and was heartened by its objective to seek new proposals for General Counsel and Financial Consultant. Commissioner Robinson took a strong stand that requests for appropriations be accompanied by validating financial analysis, and Ms. Graham-Lyons made a point of introducing herself to several of us public attendees and was genuinely concerned with what we had to say, and have been saying for quite some time. PMUA may now be moving on a constructive path in stark contrast to the many years of abuse and official misconduct it has littered the streets with previously.
ReplyDeleteOne point of correction though; PMUA had been receiving $5/ton for recyclables from an outfit called Colgate Paper Stock located in New Brunswick. In short order Colgate informed the authority it would by $0/ton and then that it would cost PMUA $10/ton. Management then made the smart move to reach an agreement with Waste Management which would continue paying $5/ton for our recyclables.
I am keeping my fingers crossed that a new emphasis on transparency, accountability, and operational efficiency will begin to translate to lower and more competitive sewer and solid waste rates going forward.
Ok - why was Thomas Crownover rejected as an appointment? Is it because he was white? The commissioners are all black. If the situation were reversed we would hear strong outrage and Al Sharpton would come to town.
ReplyDeleteNo, I think it was more because Thomas Crownover was too early in the process and too smart. The council was probably intimidated by him. Hopefully, we can have him serve Plainfield in some capacity.
DeleteThe good news is that the new commissioners are also smart.
What about shared fees?
ReplyDeleteIn presenting the proposal to purchase a new Roll Off vehicle and Container the Commissioners initially were given very little information. It was heartening to see the Commissioners ask appropriate questions rather than just rubber stamping approval as had been the pattern of the past. Remarkably, after lengthy discussion, and only because Commissioner Mitchell suggested that two pieces of the equipment be purchased, was it revealed that the cost was a cool $170,000. A remarkable omission from the presentation. The questions that were not asked, and seem appropriate to ask, relate to the purchasing process. For instance:
ReplyDelete1. Were bids elicited from several vendors?
2. If not, why not?
3. If the equipment is only available from a single source how were the negotiations conducted? That is, was the first price tendered accepted, or was there some hard bargaining?
The Commissioners did ask for an economic analysis to show the justification for this significant expenditure.. The response, if provided, should show, amongst other things, whether the cost will be expensed in 2015, or amortized, if the latter, how long. The account to which the equipment is charged should be identified. Since the equipment is required is for the exclusive use of the "New contracts" for rehandling, then the cost should be included in the year end analysis of the P&L for this operation, not buried in a Capital Account thereby distorting the profitability of these new contracts.
When Ms. Brokaw was asked why Mr. Perry was denied his severance payment as defined in his Employment Agreement, her response was," He didn't deserve it". I view this as an emotional response for reasons that I do not know. What I had hoped, particularly from an attorney, was a rational explanation as to why the provisions of Mr. Perry's contract did not warrant the payment. The trial judge obviously thought that Mr. Perry did "deserve' the payment and Mr. Perry was paid.
PS The Authority spent $68,000 of the reader's money for attorneys pursuing their failed and unexplained attempt to deny Mr. Perry his severance payment.
An unanswered question is whether the Commissioners will attempt to deny payment to those Executives still employed with similar severance provisions at the termination of their contracts? If the payments are not denied then what distinguished Mr. Perry's situation form theirs, and what distinguished Mr. Perry's situation for that of Messrs. Ervin and Watson upon whom boodles of money were heaped?
Bill Kruse
Mr. Kruse you throw around financial term like you are a financial genius or maybe a CPA. Do you realize that the authority has a CPA as their CFO with extensive experience that far out weighs your limited financial knowledge? I would have to believe that the fiscal staff is alot more competent than you give them credit for.
DeleteDoes this mean Williamson and Young are out? If so, whew- hang on to your hat, this is going to be one heck of a ride.
ReplyDeleteI applaud the Administration and the City Council in understanding the issues of PMUA, and voting in the new commissioners, who will bring about the positive change much needed in this department.
If Williamson and Young are both out, the authority and the city will have a bigger problem than you think. The authority is much more complex than you think. If you think it is bad now, it will surely get worse. I can't wait to see if that happens. That would be a definite disaster.
DeleteComplete nonsense 10:52. One is an attorney with no prior experience with sewage and solid waste. The other is a CPA. Both are essentially 'pencil pushers'. Williamson earns nearly double what the third highest paid employee makes, and neither of these two men are responsible for any facet of the direct operation of either system or the transfer station. No one is indispensable, certainly not these two. PMUA's problems have always been top down. Its operations are complex, so the best bet is to look for an executive director from the world of engineering, who also has managerial experience. Qualified CPAs are a dime a dozen, besides which, Mr. Young has rarely shown an ability to put together numbers to answer many operational questions that come up at meetings. The real disaster is complacency in the face of complexity, a situation PMUA has a great deal of experience with.
DeleteIf Williamson and Young are out, then we will just get 2 new political appointees that have less of an understanding of the business than they do. They will have alot to learn and will do it by increasing rates and bringing in more political friends. I think these 2 were moving in the right direction. Be careful of what you are wishing for. The change might not be what upu think.
DeleteAlan
ReplyDeleteAs a previous board member, I know how competent Mr. Young is. You have not attended the working meetings that we have had that provides all of the detail that we as board members need to make decisions. Just because he doesn't answer your questions with the answers that you want to hear that doesn't mean that he doesn't have the correct answer. He is much more knowledgeable than you in this industry although you are reluctant to give him credit. He should definitely be kept as pmua goes through whatever transition is necessary
I'm not sure what sort of credence we should give to a former PMUA board member in the first place, particularly one who remains anonymous. It's not so much answers I don't want to hear, it's more like getting no answers, no followup (even after followup was promised), or answers that are outright fabrications and lies. That's been the PMUA MO for too long.
Delete