Plainfield City Council members often say they wish the public attended in greater numbers both the agenda-setting and the business sessions.
Last night's meeting offered a perfect illustration of why citizens might not want to.
I have always argued that there is no dearth of citizen turnout and desire to participate when there is an issue the public perceives as important -- the proposed tax abatements for the Monarch condos and the Dudley House saga come to mind.
The Council needs to look in the mirror and consider how its own behavior tends to reduce citizen enthusiasm for this particular spectator sport.
Two discussions last night illustrate my point --
Dudley HouseSuch performances hardly make the Council look like the wise leaders I am always expecting. But then, I am an incurable optimist.
Nearly an hour of the public's time was wasted in a fruitless back-and-forth between the Council and the administration over the ongoing, unresolved situation with Dudley House. The Council was at pains to state its support of substance abuse rehab programs, but tempers grew frayed at the waffling by the Robinson-Briggs administration over what would be done and by when. As Councilors Storch and Burney reiterated, 'this has been going on for nine months' and it needs to be resolved.
One problem is the Administration is allowed to get away with never putting anything in writing; the other is letting the Administration get away with never resolving situations. Neither Malcolm Dunn nor Ray Blanco would have put up with this hemming and hawing. The Council needs to stop enabling the Administration and move the ball down the field.
'Going Paperless'
Secondly, the Council sometimes shoots itself in the foot. Last evening Councilor Carter said she wanted to 'briefly discuss going paperless'. It was a nice thought, but was anything but brief and anything but edifying, since the Council seemed not to be prepared for a substantive discussion of what this means. Except that it involved getting the packets electronically, from 'someone', 'somehow'. The what, the who, and the how are important issues; but why wouldn't the Council prep themselves before having such a conversation.
Reflect on this: Not once in the entire discussion did anyone point to the way Council President Burney has been putting up agendas and items as a good model for the public portion of the information Councilors get in their packets. (There are compelling reasons why other materials should not be public, but that is a separate issue.)
Anyone know a nun with a good ruler?
-- Dan Damon
Posts
10 comments:
This council and this mayor give the voters great reason to replace them in November. If I were a council member I know I would require that the mayor come to the table with written information. Is she too lazy or too sly to do this? How can any governing body, wait, ours doesn't govern, that's the problem. How can this council and mayor not be prepared and move items through at a pace that will achieve resolution and encourage the public to be involved. I think many on the council and the mayor would prefer the public not know what they are doing. It's time the citizens of Plainfield demanded accountability from our elected officials. In 25 years of following Plainfield government, this is the most disorganized I've ever seen it.
I agree with Dan and active citizen. I was amazed at how unprepared it seemd that some in the room were.
Storch and Mapp were asking very important questions and had legitimate concerns regarding Dudley House financing and the City Administrator seemed completely unprepared to address their concerns. Either that or he JUST WASN"T GETTING IT!
So, we are going to vote for Pivnichny in November, right? If not, what do we think is going to change?
There were more than 50 pages on Dudley House in the Council packet. It was a complete and thorough presentation. It was obvious that some Council members didn't even bother to read it before the meeting--if they had done so, they wouldn't have had to raise some of those questions.
I think they should go back to the old schedule of two meetings a month--the agendas wouldn't be as crowded, the meetings wouldn't run so late, and the public would have more opportunity to listen and comment. A lot of people left before the end of the meeting.
Actually, the placement was fine. What I should have asked for was a direct link. sorry.
last I checked, Ray Blanco had very little regard for you Dan because of what mis-information you spread about him and how you dissed him.
Maybe you should look in your rear-view mirror before mouthing off.
You never know what Latino or Latina may be be standing there.
Did not attend the meeting and was wondering if anything was mentioned concerning the phone system failure.
I've been told water got into some wiring and brought the system down.
Wouldn't it be nice if the Administration posted an explanation on the website, like they did about when the tax bills will go out?
I think that was the initial problem but don't they have battery backup for the phones??? Give me back old Ma Bell anytime.
This comment is directed to "active citizen". You say "This council and this mayor give the voters great reason to replace them in November." And this comment is also directed to-Anonymous August 11, 2009 8:47AM says "So, we are going to vote for Pivnichny in November, right? If not, what do we think is going to change?"
The answer is . . . the Plainfield citizen should exercise all of their rights in voting. All voters have the write to WRITE-IN their vote. Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write-in_vote.
I will be writing in ADRIAN O. MAPP. We heard him during the Mayoral Primary. We know where he stands.
active citizen -you have an unused blog. Put it to use. Teach the Plainfielders how to WRITE IN their vote.
It ain't over til after the polls close on November 3. Let us NOT settle!
Post a Comment