In the dust-up over whether the Council should agree to give Plainfield's City Administrator and Public Safety/Police Director take-home city vehicles (not finally decided yet, by the way), Mr. Dashield raised the argument they should be given the vehicles because they are two of the five officials who would be needed on hand immediately in case of a citywide emergency.
Fair enough, but since they don't live close enough to be on hand 'at a moment's notice' regardless of whether they drive their own or city-owned vehicles, Mr. Dashield inadvertently raised the issue of WHETHER PLAINFIELDERS WOULD FEEL SAFER IF DEPARTMENT HEADS HAD TO LIVE IN THE CITY as required by law.
Though not the most serious issue facing the Council as it attempts to wrestle the Administration into submitting a trimmed-down budget proposal, it certainly has struck a nerve with voters/taxpayers/residents. The series of posts garnered a whopping 46 comments, and the poll itself brought in a total of 182 votes.
The results? By a margin of more than three-to-one, readers say they would FEEL SAFER if the City Administrator and Public Safety/Police Director lived in Plainfield. (Eight people were 'not sure'.)
Unscientific it may be, but the Council has a history of paying attention to public sentiment.
Too bad the same cannot be said of the Robinson-Briggs administration.
- January 03: "Who should get City wheels, and why?"
- January 12: "Take-home city cars on Council agenda tonight"
- January 14: "Take-home cars rile readers; City raises 'emergency' specter"
- January 15: "Are Plainfielders safe with officials living so far away?"
-- Dan Damon
Posts
6 comments:
Dan,
It is not a question of feeling safe. The question is whether we would be safer-emergency or not. I for one voted no. The issue is not cars or residency but whether these public servants are getting the job done. Considering the concerns that you and other bloggers have raised and that have been raised over the years, clearly they have failed the citizens. The Charter says they should live in Plainfield. So live in Plainfield. End of discussion. Why don't they? Our political leaders have failed us!!
Of course I feel the need to bring up the point : WE LIVE IN NJ. Public officials are not all bound by their own laws or the expectations put upon "us", the common people who are barely worth to bow at their feet. Of course, that's not how it should be at all..but that is the reality of how the "wise sages" we allow to be put into office believe our pockets are there for the robbing. If it's in the City Charter then the chief enforcer of that city charter -- the Mayor and her puppet master Jerry -- should enforce it. It won't happen, but it should.
Ha Ha. This one gets your buddy Mapp in trouble. He is a top official in Roselle, but does not live there.
I would line to hear how Mapp wiggles out of this one.
I trust he will speak publically on this and write about his opinion on his blog.
No poll was ever needed - Just ask the Director if he feels citizens would feel safer if he lived in Plainfield.
Nevertheless, who in their right mind would sell their home in todays market and move to Plainfield knowing it would only be for 4 years
To John Rearson -- You must have missed Mr. Dashield explaining at the Council agenda session just who the 'top' officials in Plainfield are, who need to be here 'at a moment's notice' in case of emergency: the Mayor, the City Administrator, the Public Safety/Police Director, the Fire Chief and the Superintendent of Public Works.
No one else is 'top', including the CFO.
Ditto Roselle.
Read more carefully.
I have received a comment that was not on topic, posted at 11:01 AM Saturday by 'Luke'. As I have explained before, the policy on Plainfield Today is that off-topic comments will be rejected. Find another venue.
Post a Comment