Thursday, March 31, 2016

Blog Posts Draw Heavy Comments

I was up a little too late last night and cannot come up with a new topic.

Looking at recent blog posts, I saw two that generated 30 comments each and another that received 25 comments. Perhaps, if you don't go back and look at posts on controversial topics, you might be interested in the comments on these three. It's likely that there will be more said when the council meets on Monday.

The first one to get 30 comments was a March 15 post, "Council Votes to Investigate Police Division." The action came at the end of the meeting and the crowd had thinned, except for a group of supporters of Lt. Ken Reid. They applauded Councilwoman Gloria Taylor's call for an investigation, which the council approved unanimously.

However, at a special meeting on March 21, the governing body was asked to overturn the resolution to investigate the Police Division. Officers involved in various aspects of an accreditation process .talked about their work, but the vote to support police failed, with Councilwoman Diane Toliver abstaining, Council President Cory Storch and council members Rebecca Williams and Barry Goode voted "yes" and Councilwoman Taylor voted "no." Councilwomen Bridget Rivers and Tracey Brown were absent..With only three "yes" votes, the vote failed.

You can read the blog post, "Council Vote in Support of Police Fails" and 30 comments at the link.

The third post was about a comment Taylor made at the March 21 special meeting that I found shocking. "Taylor's Shocking Words" got 25 comments, both pro and con.

Monday's agenda-fixing session is 7:30 p.m. in Municipal Court, 325 Watchung Ave.

--Bernice

23 comments:

  1. Looks like you're trying to stir the pot with this post. So I'll stir the pot with this comment- Why is the City Administration, the City Council, PMUA management and its Board of Commissioners so full of cowards that they are all unwilling to deal with 18 years of fraud and the missing Solid Waste lease? Why isn't PMUA disclosing its disposal costs and tonnage figures as it's contractually obligated to do? Why does the City insist on calling the Sewer Lease revenue sharing, when in fact there has never been any revenue sharing? Why has there never been any effort to force former commissioners to reimburse ratepayers for the many $100,000s in illegal and unauthorized compensation they received? Is it because two of today's Council members were recipients of this illicit booty? And finally, will the City ever ask PMUA to rationalize the ripoff that is the Shared Systems Service Fee in a bottom-up manner, and offer to pay the cost of solid waste service for public areas as it ought to, out of property taxes, rather than keep ratepayers in the cross-hairs of PMUA's version of an over-staffed bureaucratic vulture economy?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alan, you still don't get. You have been singing the same song about the PMUA for years and it has done any good. The reason why it hasn't is simple - Your claims are NOT VALID. Your really need to stop wasting your time. You harping on those invalid claims are doing more harm for your cause than good. Why can'take you just stop it. We are all tired of you. If there was theft and abuse like you said it was, when the state comptroller office was there 4 years ago, they would have shut it down. Please, enough already.

      Delete
    2. Yeah Alan, the PMUA has done more good than you give them credit for. They have employed a lot of people in town and gave them a 2nd chance. Yes it does make rates somewhat higher but if these people didn't have jobs you could be complaining about an increased crime rate. So if you keep complaining about how many people are employed there and something does happen and these people are out of jobs you could have a bigger problem. Be careful what you wish for. A lower rate might not be what you really want.

      Delete
    3. Excuse me, but are you saying that us rate-payers need to be paying "somewhat higher" rates to remain safer? That is extortion ...

      Delete
    4. I'm saying that employment is good for the city and reduces crime. If you create more unemployment crime is sure to increase. Look it up.Then you will be complaining about increased taxes for hiring more police. Either way you are going to pay so stop wining

      Delete
  2. Agreed Mr. Goldstein

    ReplyDelete
  3. Alan has challenged me several times on PMUA issues. The volume of material he has on PMUA issues makes me think it would be better for him to create his own blog rather than expect me to try to do the same type of investigation along with covering municipal government, land use boards and other topics. Sorry I have not been able to meet Alan's expectations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one will ever meet Alan's expectations so don't waste your time trying

      Delete
  4. That the community benefits from employment is undeniable. The whole question is degree. Where is the balance between those benefits and the price the entire community must pay to acquire them? As noted previously 17% of Plainfield's population lives below the poverty level. The vast majority lives paycheck to paycheck. So when a cool one million dollars is awarded to two retirees without the remotest basis for merit, the politically appointed Commissioners bilk the Authority for 100's of thousands of dollars in illegal benefits and the number of employees is conspicuously excessive, where is the justice for the population? Remember, the Shared Service Fee is a regressive tax, the same for wealthy and poor. Social Justice should consider all factors. The conspicuous excesses of the PMUA transcend what is fair and burden those who can ill afford to pay. Bill Kruse

    ReplyDelete
  5. If Alana’s claims have any validity then he should take it to the proper authority or shut up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are correct. He has taken them to the proper authority and was told that he was incorrect. If he was correct something would have been done. Anyone one that doesn't agree with him is wrong. Maybe some day he will realize that he is not always right. No ,I take that back, he will never learn. He always spouts out information like it's a fact when it is really not.

      Delete
  6. Let's review what Alan and a few other concerned people have accomplished. The illegally paid benefits to Commissioners have been terminated. The travels of a platoon of Commissioners and senior employees to "conferences" around the country has been put on a leash. The rampant employment of "consultants" every time management or the Commissioners had a thought has been curtailed. The wholesale distribution of summonses for petty violations has been reduced. Water can now be monitored if someone fills a backyard pools as to be excluded from the computation used to compute your sewer bill. The high water mark of 174 employees has, I believe, been reduced to about 150. As to the court regarding Shared Service, the Court ruled that the PMUA was entitled to bill all residences. The question of the fair value was not determined. To my knowledge there have been no other determinations by any Court or State Authority. Thank you Alan for helping 10,000 households have a few more dollars to spend on their families. BK

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow! If you all that was accomplished by Alan, you are as foolish as he is and other FEW people as you stated in your 1st sentence. You are another one that doesn't give the PMUA Management and Board no credit. You also throw around the term "illegal" quiet often. Again it there were "illegality", why hasn't anyone gone to jail? Doesn't illegality usually involve jail, fines or some type of punishment? That question demands only a yes or no answer and not a long worday answer we are accustomed to from you. Enough already. You and Alan think that you are LAW. We await your pretty and wordy response even though we only want a yes or no to my question

      Delete
    2. To my knowledge as you put it there has been no court or state authority that has deemed anything the PMUA has done as ILLEGAL. Have I missed a ruling?

      Delete
    3. To Anonymous 9:23, the short answer is 'No', illegality does not always mean jail, fines, or some other type of punishment, at least not always immediately. To Anonymous 2:42, the short answer is also 'No', no one has ever told me I am incorrect about the issues I mentioned in my first comment, unless you want to count PMUA's former General Counsel Leslie London's fabrications. Neither has PMUA or anyone else offered a shred of evidence refuting any one of these allegations. When someone like Anonymous 8:43 spouts off that they're "Not Valid", it may pass for evidence in some circles, but not very many.

      The Inter Local Agreement is what it is, and has never been amended. It is clear as to exactly what is the Solid Waste Lease, what bill the City pays, and what payment is owed by PMUA. The bait and switch conspired to by PMUA and the City may have cost taxpayers as much as $2.5 million, illicitly fattening Authority coffers. That is fraud.

      As to the commissioner compensation issue, another $1 million at the very least, suffice it to say that commissioners were not taxed on their healthcare benefits. Even though the Board held that such benefits were not compensation, they took the exemption for healthcare benefits paid as compensation. That was always a fraudulent stance however because the IRS rules state that "A fringe benefit provided in connection with the performance of services shall be considered to have been provided as compensation for such services." Anyway, the writing was on the wall once the Division of Local Government Services in Trenton required, partly at my urging, new compensation disclosure for all Authorities' key employees and board members beginning with the 2015 budget document. PMUA's filing indicated that in 2014 alone, commissioners Harold Mitchell, Carol Brokaw, and Alex Toliver received over $56,000 in unauthorized compensation between them. By the time the State signed off on the 2015 budget, the PMUA board had voted to end nearly 20-years of habitual disregard for the law.

      Delete
    4. Here goes another long wordy answer that spouts "fraud", "illegality", and "unauthorized compensation " and other nasty terms. Again, you throw these derogatory terms around like you are lawyer who knows what they are talking about but the real state authorities and government agencies have NOT suported your claims.It's seems like the PAUA should be able to bring a suit against you for slander. I also see you think like Kruse that you changed the PMUA. What joke that is. Maybe you should draw a check for all your good deeds and hard work. Oh! That might be "illegal compensation"

      Delete
    5. No, Alan didn't do it alone. The 550 families that signed the petition that went to Trenton and the hundreds who opted out of household collection triggered these reforms. Don't think for a moment that if the public had remained silent that anything would have changed.

      Delete
    6. What's that, 550 families out of 55,000 people? Sounds like the minority to me. The change was implemented by the Board of Directors, not Alan and the other 550 families. Those that have opted out just are the lucky ones that have to pay 2 bills for garbage because as the LAW ruled, you have to pay the shared service. That was not a ruling by Alan ESQ.

      Delete
    7. Enough about the PMUA which is always used as a diversion to cover up where the real problems are. The CITY where we pay thousands of $$$ in taxes and what are we getting for that? Hey! I got a job for Alan. Compare our City to other Cities as it relates to utilization of tax $$$$ and fix that problem like he did the PMUA but we can'talk pay you because that would be "illegal".

      Delete
    8. The change was implemented by the Board of Commissioners to stop the hemorrhaging of opt outs, not because the Commissioners had an epiphany. The Board is now comprised of a new team. The jury is out regarding their performance.

      Delete
    9. Finally someone agrees the the change was made by the Board and not Alan the Great

      Delete
  7. Alan is obsessed with PMUA because he most likely don't want to pay the shared service fee. If Alan is so concerned about Plainfield and it's residents why is he so quite concerning ourlittle black and Latino kids getting a subpar education while the current school board president and her husband pillage thousands from the over inflated school board budget.

    ReplyDelete