'
You will recall PT muttering last week (Counting to five) that it didn't seem like there should be TWO appointments to full seats on the PMUA board coming up, as Bernice had earlier noted in the Plaintalker.
Well it kept after me just because it seemed so ASYMMETRICAL it didn't make any sense. So PT started to check it out.
First up -- the ordinance passed by the City in September 1995. Below is a scan of the section pertaining to membership (I have merged the portion on the overleaf into one image). Click on any image to enlarge it or check the links at the end of the article to full-size scans posted on the archive blog.
You will note that is quite sketchy, but elsewhere in the ordinance it does refer to the State statute which allows for the setting up of county and municipal utilities authorities. Since the City ordinance doesn't explain how the terms are to be laid out, PT turned hopefully to the State statute.
What a shock he got!
Not only does the statute specify that there will be five full members, it specifies that they will serve 5-year terms and specifically outlines a process whereby it is guaranteed that ONE, AND ONLY ONE, will be appointed to a FULL five-year term in February of each year. (Of course, if a seat falls vacant it is filled FOR THE REMAINDER OF THAT SEAT'S TERM.)
Check it out yourself here --
But that's not all. Guess who does the appointing? It would appear from the language -- and I read it aloud several times -- that it is NOT the Mayor, but the GOVERNING BODY that makes the appointments. (It seems it IS the Mayor only if the form of government is that of a TOWNSHIP, else it is the governing body. Plainfield is, of course, not a Township, but a City -- with a special charter.)
But wait! There's more! The next page contained another shocker, regarding the ALTERNATE MEMBERS.
Two are allowed, again apparently APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNING BODY. But there appears to be an additional wrinkle -- their terms are for FIVE YEARS, and not TWO as Plainfield's ordinance would have it.
Now, PT is not a lawyer, but the plain English of the statute -- and I was always told State statute takes precedence over local ordinances -- suggests that Plainfield has a real mess on its hands in the way it has gone about these appointments.
PT hopes that the Council will be concerned as well, and will get to the bottom of the matter before taking any action on the PMUA appointments.
With President Bush sending our young men and women to die in a war that has as a goal bringing respect for the law to the citizens of that unfortunate land, it hardly seems appropriate that Plainfield should be less concerned about respecting the laws here at home.
Full page printable scans of the State statute and the relevant section of the City's ordinance can be found here.
The State statutes are on the State Legislature's website, and the link to this particular statute is here.
View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.
ARCHIVED POSTS OF PLAINFIELD TODAY FROM 11/03/2005 THROUGH 12/31/2006 ARE AT
http://plainfieldtoday.blogspot.com/
http://plainfieldtoday.blogspot.com/
Posts
1 comments:
State statute does generally take precedence over local ordinance, as you say. However, Plainfield's special charter IS a state statute, so it's provisions carry the same weight as state law. Therefore, since our charter permits appointments by the Mayor with advice and consent of the Council, I suggest we do it. That does not negate any of the rest of the irregularities you cite.
Post a Comment