 |
8 Ball knows! |
There were a large number of ordinances (7), but most were unobjectionable tidying-up of zoning regulations (4). There were, however, three ordinances that the Mayor could have contested.
MC2013-18 is an ordinance to change (increase) the salary band for the Chief Financial Officer to a new maximum of $155,000. The argument has been advanced by several Council members that Plainfield's finances are complex, and that attracting an experienced and competent CFO requires paying a more 'competitive' salary.
That may well be, but I have had my suspicions all along that the two main reasons Plainfield has had trouble getting a full-time permanent CFO since 2007 are 1) the Robinson-Briggs administration has not really been all that interested in solving the problem, and 2) that well-qualified candidates have been chary of Plainfield because of the Robinson-Briggs administration's dysfunctionality.
All of that is expected to change momentarily.
The other two ordinances (MC2013-19 and MC2013-20) established the new position of 'Chief of Staff' to Mayor-elect Mapp and a salary band for the job.
With the Council passing the ordinances, the only question was whether Mayor Robinson-Briggs would see fit to veto them.
The deadline was this past Thursday, at close of business.
The deadline passed without incident, which means the Councilors will not have to worry about interrupting their holidays with a special meeting to override any vetos.
Call it a Christmas present from the mayor.
Posts
4 comments:
you think she figured it out?
I thought the City Administrator was to supervise the staff, hence no need for a "chief of staff." But the deed is done for the new and increased salaries. What it means is another $10 out of the pocket of every homeowner. Unless staff are cut and salaries held flat (relative to private sector pay, they have skyrocketed), there will be no tax relief.
Shhhh. . . word on the street is Mapp is going to appoint a woman as the Chief of Staff. Now which woman is it? Hmmm . . .
ERo
Why does it take you until now to say you think it was dysfunction and wariness, not an uncompetitive salary, that kept CFOs away? You should have spoken up before the ordinance was voted on.
Post a Comment