Watching the Plainfield City Council's first budget session after the past-due-date introduction by the Robinson-Briggs administration was instructive on two fronts: positively by Judge Joan Robinson-Gross and negatively by the Council itself.
Judge Robinson-Gross opened the evening, offering both an eyeopening piece of news and a positive budget lesson for those willing to do a little digging.
Judicial canons keep judges out of the public spotlight and with good reason, but in Robinson-Gross' case, Plainfield is somewhat cheated. Tall, elegant, voluminously well-informed and with a dry wit, Robinson-Gross is both an imposing presence and a special treat. Tuesday evening was no exception.
The startling piece of news was that as of September 1 of this year, state policy was dramatically changed to allow municipal code officials (housing and health were specifically mentioned) to DIRECTLY ISSUE COURT SUMMONSES. This is revolutionary because it acknowledges that the officials charged with enforcing the codes are in the best position to make determinations of 'probable cause', which is the basis for a summons. From a budget point of view, though, it is important because it cuts out one whole layer of bureacracy -- having court personnel convert the official's complaint into a summons.
This is a real cost-saver. One would have thought the Robinson-Briggs administration would trumpet it from the rooftops, wouldn't one. AND TOUTED how it was able to use the new powers in such matters as, say, the Connolly Properties cases. Ah, but this is Robinson-Briggs' Plainfield. As we should know by now, the writ of normal expectations does not run here.
More valuable from a long-term budgetary perspective was Judge Robinson-Gross' distinctions between municipal courts which are primarily 'traffic-driven' and those like Plainfield, which she said are 'drug-driven'.
Discussing the differences in revenue generation for the municipality, Judge Robinson-Gross pointed out that in traffic-driven courts, most of the income from fines goes to the municipalities, whereas in drug-driven courts, most goes to the counties and the state.
Two lessons can be gained from this insight.
First, sharp-eyed local legislators will bear this in mind as they craft local ordinances which carry cash fines for violation. Or at least so we can hope.
Second, an Administration that means business will make strategic decisions that enhance the municipality's benefit from MAKING ITS COURT MORE TRAFFIC-DRIVEN.
This is a lesson that was not lost on Mayor Al McWilliams, whose attention to the matter drove up court-derived income from both traffic summonses and parking violations. This income level fell sharply in the early years of the Robinson-Briggs administration.
It would be wise for the Council and the CBAC to get a timeline of these receipts for say the last ten years, and force the discussion of having the Robinson-Briggs administration develop a policy for curing any shortfalls in this area.
That's the good news.
The Council's method in conducting the review was painful without the promise of being really fruitful, and that's the bad news.
What Council President Burney did was to let the department heads defend their proposed budgets, with Councilors given the opportunity to probe and comment afterwards.
I think this way of conducting a review does a disservice both to senior City staff and their insights into where money can be saved AND to the Council, which puts itself solely in the role of 'heavy' here instead of as a co-collaborator on behalf of the taxpayers.
Far better, I think, would be a situation where department heads are told: 'You and your division heads must come to the table with a plan to reduce your budget by a stated percent [8%, or 10%, for example]. AND DO NOT approach the Council table WITHOUT a proposal which meets this target.'
This has the double advantage of bringing those whose knowledge of where the 'fat' IS AND ISN'T into the process on the side of the taxpayers, and in turning the Council into the force which is acting COLLABORATIVELY and PRO-ACTIVELY on behalf of the taxpayers where Mayor Robinson-Briggs and City Administrator Dashield have shown themselves unwilling or unable to do so.
With this more efficient process, discussions at the Council table would be foreshortened by such advance work, the cuts needed would be shared ACROSS ALL DEPARTMENTS AND NOT JUST SOME, and the Council and the City's administrative leadership cadre could share some praise as well as the inevitable pain.
What could be the harm in at least trying?
-- Dan Damon [follow]
Posts
6 comments:
Dan, Your good idea about how the council should conduct the department hearings should be listened to by Burney. It's not too late for him to make that announcement. He is weak and ineffective, and more and more it appears that he really doesn't know how to lead. His fulminations against the administration are now too little, too late and are being seen for what they are, attempts to prop up his reelection next year by looking tough. But we see through this transparency.
I am glad the judge it this meeting was helpful and the Council and Mayor listened. I do hope the Council President learns his lesson, as he did choose a poor method of running such meetings. Each department needs to be told how much they must sacrifice, not discussion, and to come up with plan on how they will institute the Council's mandate. The mayor should have done this, but she is a do nothing mayor, wo what else if new.
Can you tell me why Burney has appointed Simmons to work with Storch "to lead and represent the council in the union discussions"? Seriously? I mean, is Burney serious? Simmons is barely present and he is leaving the council in a couple of weeks. I thought Burney was serious. Pathetic.
Westfield has to be way ahead on this, there was a time where I could barely go there and not get a parking ticket. Even if the meter didn't work - the ticket was on the window. And don't be a minute late - a ticket would be on the window. It got so bad that some of the downtown merchants were protesting that the agressive enforcement was driving away shoppers. Sure it drove up city revenues!!
What an easy way to add to the coffers.
However another way to look at this is, the Council should say we want you to do A+B+C ... and what iwll it cost? then decide if it is worth the expenses. Patrol a street every half hour; have 5 Police on walking patrol downtown 24 hours etc.
Another way to assist - give our young, energetic teens and young adults some law enforcement training. There are many cities which have youth organizations associated with the local authorities. On the one hand, it's a mentoring and training program. On the other hand, it's a supplemental workforce for little if any additional expense. Show the youth how exciting law enforcement can be. Show them how to issue minor summons - a group under the supervision of one officer. Instead of a group of officers who could better serve patrolling the more dangerous areas. When there's a parade or large gathering, these same trained youth force can supplement security in the crowds. I recently saw a program such as this in effect, attached to the CBP office in Newark/Elizabeth port. An officer is assigned to the troup. They meet weekly. The youths (14-21) are trained in basic self defense and law. They are required to meet certain goals. They are required to work certain events - traffic direction at local college games as well as aid officers during parades and small local events. [Granted - in Plainfield, we're not talking too much exposure during the evenings or late nights. We're not trying to put the city in a high risk position.] The dedicated participants are rewarded with internships, school scholarships, training and experience. I know Jersey City, as well as other cities and towns in the northern counties. I've been trying to find out if Plainfield has or has considered a program similar to this. It seems like a good idea, which could work in other areas (ex: after school admin assistance at the BOE, City Hall, etc.)and would benefit all. It would also get Briggs back on track with her original campaign promise to improve the lives of our youth.
Post a Comment