The issue of take-home City vehicles has really raised readers hackles as witness the comments to the previous post on the matter (see here). More on that later, but first an update on the issue.
At Monday's City Council agenda-setting session, the Robinson-Briggs administration raised a new issue: the specter of EMERGENCY SITUATIONS.
City Administrator Dashield said the five people for whom take-home cars are proposed (the Mayor, City Administrator, Fire Chief, Superintendent of Public Works and Public Safety/Police Director) are the key personnel needed on hand AT A MOMENT'S NOTICE if an emergency situation arises in the city.
This is all well and good (does this mean Robinson-Briggs has an emergency plan?), but it completely sidesteps the question of WHY those individuals should be given TAKE-HOME CITY VEHICLES.
Perhaps it would be helpful to understand the HISTORY of getting take-home vehicles. A comment by 'GB' on the recent post (see here) offers an insight into the matter --
This whole thing started in the days of one car families. An "Important" staff member was allowed to take a vehicle [car, pickup, van] so they would have NO excuse as to why they could not be called in on a moments notice. Then the Fire Chief took his down to Florida [with its special hitch to pull his boat] and things got out of control. PS: All City cars were to have DECALS on them [except undercover Police & Health Div confidential inquiries]So, if the official in question has his/her OWN VEHICLE, there wouldn't be a reason to give them a take-home City vehicle under this line of reasoning. Also, identifying decals would be on these vehicles.
Secondly, Mr. Dashield has now raised an issue that COMPLICATES the Robinson-Briggs administration's case: If there are officials who need to be here at A MOMENT'S NOTICE, then shouldn't they be required to live in the City of Plainfield, as the charter requires? It is also curious that in following this line of reasoning the Robinson-Briggs administration DOES NOT MAKE ANY MENTION of the city's Emergency Management Coordinator, into whose bailiwick this falls. It does, doesn't it?
Living at a great distance from the community means, ipso facto, that REGARDLESS OF WHOSE VEHICLE THEY DRIVE, those officials CANNOT POSSIBLY get here on A MOMENT'S NOTICE IN CASE OF AN EMERGENCY.
Dashield's argument (actually, it is the Mayor's, he is only expressing it) does nothing to further the notion of giving officials take-home cars, but it does make a good case for ENFORCING THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT, something the Council has the power to compel.
Mr. Dashield also stated that take-home cars are part of the employment agreements of these officials. The Council should investigate that statement and not take it at face value. Meanwhile, as Dr. Yood has pointed out, if it's COMPENSATION, it needs to be COUNTED as such, STATED as such on the payroll records, and TAXES PAID on the value thereof by the official in question.
Another reader did some calculations in commenting on the previous post (see here) --
Dashield said the cost per vehicle assigned for 24/7 use is $1,200 a year. Shoot - let me use a city vehicle 24/7 and I'd pay the City Back double that. Imagine what I would save on car insurance each year (a minimum of $1,000 a year) Imagine what I would save on gas back and fourth to work if I lived 40 miles away. (that's 400 miles a week at 15 mpg @ $4/gal) That's over $5,000/yr. for gas. Plus I would never have to pay for oil changes, tires and other vehicle maintenance or even a mechanic. And I could even get my car washed anytime I wanted to without paying for it.Let's see: Gas, insurance, maintenance -- that could certainly add up. Have the officials getting this perk been paying taxes for it as compensation? Good question, and let's thank Mr. Dashield for putting it on the table.
Hey - could I "Pimp My Ride" at taxpayer expense too???
RILING THE READERS/TAXPAYERS/VOTERS
Wrapping the whole discussion up, let's look at how it has riled Plainfield Today readers, who are also TAXPAYERS and VOTERS.
My first job out of college was as a community organizer, and I was trained by people from Saul Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) -- the famous Chicago institution to which President-elect Obama traces his community organizing credentials.
When we planned events that we hoped would highlight issues and mobilize neighborhoods, we followed what was called the '10x10 rule'.
Simply put, it meant that if 50 people came out to a rally, there tens times that many (500) who were committed but either couldn't make it or were afraid to attend, and that those people (500) each positively influenced 10 others (= 5,000) with their point of view on the matter at hand.
I don't know if anyone from the Robinson-Briggs administration bothers to read Plainfield Today, but if they do they might want to keep this principle in mind when they count the number of comments on the post (which is sort of like coming out to a rally, if you think about it).
With 17 comments and running -- one of which is a chat-back by me and one of which is in support of the Police Director getting a car -- we are left with 15 comments. Applying the '10x10 rule' would suggest there are at least 1,500 taxpayer/voters out there who are mightily riled by the Robinson-Briggs administration's proposals at hand.
In an election year such as this, 1,500 votes might give a reasonable candidate pause.
But then again, this IS Plainfield.
- Plainfield Today --
- (previous post): "Take-home city vehicles on Council agenda"
- (first post) "City vehicles: Who should get wheels and why?"
- Courier News --
- (today): "Car privilege extended for two as controversy continues"
- (first story): "Officials, residents eye take-home vehicles as cost savings"
Posts
20 comments:
applying the 10x10 rule to blog comments is very very silly..
who knows HOW MANY of the comments are from YOU alone!!
One question that comes to mind is why was it OK for the McWilliams Admin cabinet to have use of these cars and not the Robinson-Briggs admim?
Most of the McWilliams cabinet lived outside of Plainfield. Why was it OK then and not now?
Oh the double standards!!
To Anonymous 8:05 AM--
What a suspicious person you are! Why not sign your name?
Yeah...Per the first comment, friend of the Mayor or Jerry ..oops, I mean "anonymous"...I seriously believe Dan wouldn't bother posting anything but his own comments. But, since you,"anonymous" would even broach that subject, I believe you are one of the many people on "the dole" for either the state, county or city who despise anyone who brings financial issues to the forefront in the State of NJ. And AS MUCH as is galls me that the Mayor ( maybe it's really just this Mayor that makes me a little ill now that I think about it ) is entitled to a vehicle..the only emergency she "MUST BE AT" is more than likely a camera ready to take a picture...love that smile...
and to the "anonymous" comment per McWilliams etc having the cars...THE CITY AND STATE ARE GOING BROKE. THINGS CHANGE. Were the city awash in cash waiting to be poured into every possible extra program imaginable of course not many people would have an issue with the amount of cars in city government. Plainfield has VERY LITTLE TAX BASE except the residents. So therefor the fact that the people who are not only helping keep taxes on the rise don't even live here is appalling. Costs MUST be cut. Maybe if Plainfield had any sort of real business community and tax base pouring money into the coffers this wouldn't be an issue. EVERY administration including this one has played a part in the currect expenses of this city. It doesn't mean you give a free ride to the ones who NEED to change it and won't. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.
Residency rules have been waived before and will be waived again. I guess it all depends on who is doing the waiving.
Perhaps a prescription is in order to treat Dan's obsessions which are becoming more and more manic. OCD is a treatable condition.
Anonymous #2: Under McWilliams Mr. Bonaparte (former city administrator) lived in Plainfield over near Muhlenberg hospital and Mr. West (former finance director) has lived here for decades and still lives here. former police Chief Santiago has lived here for a long time.
To Anonymous 8:13 AM --
Excellent question!
As to where Al McWilliams 'cabinet' lived, here's the rundown, by POSITION, from the two McWilliams terms:
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
1) Walter McNeil - Plainfield resident
2) Tom Morrison - Plainfield resident
3) Norton Bonaparte - moved to Plainfield upon taking the job
PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR
1) Mike Lattimore - inherited by McWilliams, lives in North Plainfield, residency never challenged by anyone
2) Jiles Ship - Lived in Piscataway, granted waiver by Council
PUBLIC WORKS
1) The Directors never had a city vehicle.
2) The Superintendents of Public Works have always had a city vehicle 24/7.
FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION
1) Tom Morrison - Plainfield resident
2) Susan Walcott - Plainfield resident
3) Ron West - Plainfield resident
DEPUTY CITY ADMIN/ECON DEV
1) Pat Ballard Fox, a Scotch Plains resident, drove her own vehicle.
All the above Department Directors served at the pleasure of the Mayor.
In addition, the Fire Chief McWilliams inherited lived in Hunterdon County and had a city vehicle; upon his retirement, the current Fire Chief, a Plainfield resident, was appointed; and the Police Chief, a Plainfield resident whom he appointed, had a city vehicle.
Now, what was that about double standards?
Let me see, a city with a Budget Deficit is keeping the city provided car perk; Aren't leaders supposed to lead by example? Oh I almost forgot, we're dealing with politicians and political appointees whose excesses are being funded by us, the local taxpayers. You can put all the perfume you want on a pig, But it's still just that; A pig.(who is feeding at the taxpayers trough!) Nothing new with that; business as usual in the Queen City.
The bottom line comes down to economics and wasteful management of public funds. Most individuals who work for privite or non-profit companies have to use their own vehicles or public transportion to travel to and from work. If vehicles are needed for work let them use that vehicle while at work for official city business. To maintain the argument that past administrations did it so that makes it alright is pure nonsense. Here we face a projected 9% tax increase by the city of Plainfield, not to mention additional taxes from Union County and people still feel it's business as usual. Now as far as ENFORCING THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT, if that's the rule then it should be enforced. When people exhibit the temperment that the rules don't apply to them it makes me wonder if their business decisions are made in the best interest of the community or themselves.
Even with a Residency requirement, there may be staff you want to come to City Hall/Police on a moments notice in the rain in the middle of the night who live on Evona Ave or Pineview Terr who would need to have a vehicle if their teenager was out and about with the family car.
Applying the 10x10 rule is not silly. I can't make it out to Council Meetings because of work and family commitments, but this is my way of "attending." I think huge concerns have been raised with this. I think the administration thought their request was going to be rubber stamped by the council. All of these thins need to be reviewed carefully. The bottom line is that they don't need cars. This is their job, and like the rest of us, they can use their own cars. Are they selling pharmaceuticals somewhere and need to be driving all the time? These are lean times for our society, and the audacity to ask for something extra says something about them. In addition, if the town charter indicates that they have to live in the City, why is that not enforced? I don't understand how rules are followed and not followed when it suits the administration and Council.
Ayanna Taylor
Plainfield Resident (clicking "Anonymous" is just easier for me but here is my name!)
GB --
This was based on your description of how this whole thing got started.
The presumption is the official is not a one-car only family, but has his or her own car to use, and that it would never be used by anyone else -- including any teens in the household.
Did I misunderstand your original comment?
Under the McWilliams admin, the following people had city cars for 24-hour use:
1. Mayor
2. Public Safety Director
3. Super for PW
4. Fire Chief
5. Police chief
6. City Administrator
It OK then. And not now?
Out with the lot of them!! I work everyday to fund their disrepect of the citizens of Plainfield. Enough.
to the "Anonymous / ON THE DOLE OR ONE OF MY RELATIVES IS " who said " Anonymous Anonymous said...
Under the McWilliams admin, the following people had city cars for 24-hour use:
1. Mayor
2. Public Safety Director
3. Super for PW
4. Fire Chief
5. Police chief
6. City Administrator
It OK then. And not now? "
THINGS CHANGE... GET IT ??? There is NO MORE MONEY...Just because something was ok BEFORE and it was AFFORDABLE then doesn't mean it is now. Say you have a full time job so you go out to dinner everyother night....does that mean if you are unemployed you should keep doing that ????? No, probably wouldn't make sense would it. But...of course the "true" citizens of NJ believe simply turning the screw another time to get more blood from the stone will solve the situation. Tax and spend is what has gotten NJ and the city into it's current mess. Unbelievable at how deep the people inside "the blob" of government in NJ think people's pockets are in the state.
Wow. . . ya'll been busy here. . .
My turn.
If these vehicles are compensation, then there use should continue with transparency (as Dr. Yood eluded to). Mr. Burney mentioned in his blog that it may be necessary to give vehicles to employees (and waivers for residency) to attract talent. These two points should also be part of the discussion.
As far as the cost of the vehicles goes as it relates to compensation, it is much cheaper to give the car, then the pay. Along with the pay comes ALOT of other additional payroll expenses. Matching social security alone is upwards to 8%. Then there are pension obligations, unemployment tax, etc. etc.
Don't get me wrong, I certainly don't want my taxes to increase once again higher then the inflation rate . But I am not convinced that taking the vehicles away from these two entrusted employees will amount to much. Certainly not the fanfare and time the Council is spending on it.
Additionally, I would be more concerned about the liability exposure that the vehicles poise. One of the largest increases each year in the City budget is insurance. We have HUGE , huge, increases each year in this area whether it's health, workers comp or liability. Almost to the point where the town would benefit from an Insurance Czar.
Ya'all should take all your energy, time and the huge amount of talent in this town and put it towards that. . .instead of this mudslinging craziness.
Jim Spear
Hi Dan,
How about a REQUIREMENT that senior City officials live in Plainfield???? Frankly, I think that is the real problem. If they lived in Plainfield, I would be less annoyed (but still a little peeved) about the car situation. But with 2 high ranking officials living "out of town" -- are we really getting the best for the taxpayer? Do they even understand Plainfield???
I left the city over a decade ago and whenever I visit or see blogs about it, I'm always saddened to see how much strife, drama and just plain silliness goes on in Plainfield.
It was obvious to me then how awful it was. But given the location the city is in and it's proud history, it's just difficult to see it all play out.
I've lived all over the country during this time and I have to say the leaders of the city might want to make things about race or get territorial about their own fiefdoms as they always have, but the ones who've been in charge for a long time, playing politics and treating people as marionettes fail to realize that all they're doing is turning a once proud city into an absolute joke that no one young, ambitious or with money to invest will want to live in.
I applaud those soles who stay and try to make it better in spite of the drama, but it seems to me that there has to be a better way to do things than the corrupt, Jersey-politics-as-usual manner that seems to pervade the community.
All I can say is, lots of folks ought to be ashamed of themselves for their dereliction of duty over all of these years.
There just isn't an excuse for it.
Post a Comment