Plainfield Mayor Sharon Robinson-Briggs.
As if creating fiscal turmoil by delivering her proposed budget months late weren't enough, Plainfield Mayor Sharon Robinson-Briggs provoked last minute budget drama last night by proposing the Council vote down the budget in favor of letting her try (again) to get concessions from a holdout union.
This, despite the fact that Council President Annie McWilliams outlined at the meeting's beginning that there would be only ONE VOTE at the meeting -- to adopt or not adopt the budget proposal as amended the week before by the Council.
Declaring that the layoff plan taking effect today (which, by the way, SHE proposed in November) would introduce 'chaos' and 'a slowdown' in government operation because of 'bumping rights' (the opportunity for a person with seniority to avoid being laid off by 'bumping' someone with the same or similar civil service title but less seniority), Mayor Robinson-Briggs once again betrayed a basic lack of understanding of how the city's executive branch, for which she is responsible, actually works.
Did she not know when she proposed this layoff plan that there would be 'bumping' rights?
At any rate, she asked the Council to 'rescind the layoff plan' or 'rescind its [budget] vote for two weeks' and give her a chance to 'go back to the drawing board with the unions,' saying she would 'meet with them every single day for two weeks' to get a compromise that would avoid layoffs.
Council President McWilliams, Councilor Storch, Councilor Mapp, and -- eventually -- auditor Robert Swisher of Supplee, Clooney all explained that delaying adoption of the budget past last evening would effectively shut off attempts to wring any savings at all from the current year, thus leading to an even greater tax increase.
City Administrator Bibi Taylor even conceded that delay would harm the chance for the Council's projected savings in FY2010.
A good deal of the evening was spent hearing from supporters of the city's recreation programming, rallied to attend the meeting by Rec Director David Wynn. (Besides misinforming them about what the issues were regarding the Division's funding, one has to wonder why Wynn did not get these folks out to argue their points way back when they budget amendments were being considered.)
To casual observers, it may have appeared that Councilors Reid and Rivers were swayed by the emotions of the moment and the impact of the layoff plan toward voting against the budget.
Councilor Mapp, however, pointed out that ALL of the personnel outcomes had been exhaustively discussed previously by ALL of the Councilors in executive session, including the difficulties posed by one union's failure to go along with the other unions in making concessions.
Councilor Storch also pointed out that only by PASSING a budget which would constrain the Administration's expenditures could the non-cooperating union be forced to the table to make concessions.
Notwithstanding, it became quite clear how Reid and Rivers were going to vote. (I sat there asking myself if this was indeed the same Councilor Reid who pounded the dais with his fist back in November, declaring that if the Administration couldn't find a way to trim the budget, the Council could and would.)
More puzzling was Councilor Burney's statement that, while he 'appreciated the hard work of the Finance Committee', he was disappointed because the budget did not reflect a longer-term, strategic outlook of five years or so.
Did Burney mean to insult his own leadership?
After all, he was Council President in 2009 and was responsible for LAST YEAR'S BUDGET'S FAILURE TO HAVE A 'STRATEGIC' OUTLOOK. Not only that, as Council President he presided over the first two months' deliberations of the budget on the table last night -- did he not make a convincing case for a 'strategic budget' when he led the charge?
Was his NO vote really principled? Or was he expressing his pique that he is not on this year's Finance Committee? Was he willing to take the heat for the implicit tax increase if the budget was actually defeated? Or did he know that passage was safe, and that he could afford to grandstand without any real consequences?
Watching budget sausage made is enough to make one cynical if one is not careful.
Eventually, after many detours -- including an extended discussion forced on Council President McWilliams between the voice vote and the roll call vote -- the budget passed, 4-3 --
For: Carter, Mapp, McWilliams, StorchThough everyone found the budget painful, and no one was happy with it, Council President McWilliams -- a model of grace under fire -- stuck to her guns.
Against: Burney, Reid, Rivers
Now, the Council should get down to work strategizing the FY2011 budget.
(And let's not forget that we shall soon face a tax increase because of the pension-deferral option Mayor Robinson-Briggs took last year, as that poisoned pill's repayment falls due.)
-- Dan Damon [follow]
Posts
12 comments:
Dan, I thought the pension deferral option was paid off this year, and we are done with it. At the last budget meeting, I believe Ms. Taylor stated that we are done with the deferral payment (Councilman Burney asked her pointedly as I recall).
Councilman Burney couldn't be more transparent if he tried. His no vote will be going on his campaign materials as he tries to run for re-election for his council seat. Many have been watching his strategic voting. It's like his finally getting a spine to stand up to the administration after supporting the mayor's idiotic initiatives and letting her and Jerry Green have their way for the past four years. It's all very transparent, as in we see through it, like his support for the Monarch project, his rescinding the safe homes initiative, his refusal to criticize the PMUA, and his support for the mayor over superior candidate Mapp. He can support whoever he wants, but leadership means standing up for your beliefs, not hiding in the shadows and hoping nobody notices your there until the storm blows past.
@ 7:40 -- Perhaps I misunderstood. There was some talk of doing ANOTHER deferral this year, but I think it got no (or very little) traction in the Legislature. My understanding of the previous deferral was that it would have to start being paid back WITH INTEREST in year two, or the FY2011 budget year. I will double check.
Dan, Bibi did say (unless I was dreaming) that the 2009 pension deferral was due to be paid back in the 2010 budget. You will have to go over the audio transcript of the Feb. 8 meeting to be sure.
Thank you Councilpersons McWilliams, Mapp, Storch, and Carter. I'm glad someone had the nerve to do what's right and show this mayor that we are tired of her inability to get important things done. The picture of the mayor here fits the way she runs city hall; not too focused and a little dizzy.
It's sad the Councilman Burney has done such an about face. I am disappointed in a man I admired as Council President. Councilman Reid I've always thought was wishy-washy; too much of a politician for my taste.
Burney was certainly eyeing up a re-election campaign. In-decisive or inaction won't get my vote!
How dare Burney not rubber-stamp the Mapp-Storch-McWilliams plan!
You are right Damon. We don't like people who think for themsevles. We need more rubber-stampers!!
Dan, It is pity that you glorfy the adoption of a budget that is 5% higher then the rate of inflation. How can that be good for Plainfield?
@ 4:10 -- As I said, it was not a pretty sight. The other choice would have been a 10% increase. Would you have felt better if that was the outcome?
Next year, you should volunteer to sit on the citizens budget advisory committee.
Dan, I cannot belive the Council so readily supported the Mayor's budget increases. I saw my salary go up only 2% this year. Now my taxes are going up by over 7%?
And McWilliams is beating the drums to OK this? I would have thought she would have been against such large increases.
@ 7:19 -- The Council actually gave the Mayor significant push-back.
The problem arises from the Mayor giving the budget to them so late -- on purpose, so as to avoid it being an election issue -- meaning that making any savings were difficult.
Even so, over $1 million was cut from the budget. You must remember that much of the increase is owing to contractual obligations for benefits and pension contributions.
The Council does not negotiate the union contracts, the Mayor does.
It is interesting - both bloggers focused on the politics and personalities of the situation.
Both newspapers focused on the issues raised by residents.
Post a Comment