What is it with Recreation and money?

 

'Murky' is probably the best description that can be mustered for the relationship between Plainfield's Division of Parks and Recreation and money, and it proved to be true at Tuesday's special Council meeting, where several questions were raised about funding of Recreation items.

The provision of a line-item version of the 3-month temporary budget appropriation in the publicly distributed agendas stirred considerable interest among attendees -- and Councilors.

Acting City Administrator Kochel and CFO Zilinksi were asked specifically by the Council to provide a breakout of the details behind the $44,000 item titled 'Independence Day, Other Expense', a line item disbursed through the Rec Division.

There was also some back-and-forth over several items covering 'seasonal employees' and 'summer pool program' salaries and wages. A little math-in-the-margin of my handout showed the City putting up $269,000 in salaries and wages for seasonal employees for the next three months only. Would the Council's budget deliberations be better informed if that number were looked at in detail? (Something for the Citizens Budget Advisory Comittee to consider asking about?)

Then there was a further $49,700 earmarked for 'Other Expenses' for the Rec Division for the next three months? Again, details would no doubt be helpful for the Council and the CBAC.

The recent auditor's findings cited, yet again, the perennial problem of the Recreation Division's handling of cash receipts. The auditor's specific point is that Rec consistently fails to make deposits within the required statutory time limit (48 hours). Worse, I have been told by City Hall sources the loosey-goosey handling of cash receipts raises questions about whether monies have gone astray. Surely the Robinson-Briggs administration should want this situation straightened out?

Perhaps most interesting of all is the little 'Prior Years Bills' item for $63,331.51 tucked in near the end of the temp budget appropriation.

Pressed by Councilor Mapp, CFO Zilinski and Corporation Counsel Dan Williamson allowed as how this covered claims for unpaid bills by T&M, one of the city's engineering firms, going back to 2003.

Asked point-blank by Mapp if this was the amount publicly alleged to have been held up for payment by Councilor Storch in recent campaign literature attacking him, Williamson claimed ignorance, as did Zilinski who reminded all he has only been here a few months.

But Zilinski did give a peek at the details, saying the dispute involved work the firm says it performed for the Planning Division, Public Works, and -- are you ready for this? -- Recreation.

My preliminary inquiries about these items after Tuesday's meeting indicate that the largest portion of the outstanding bills (some $42,000) traces back to work done for Recreation and DPW, and that though various meetings were held between the parties, including one put together by former DPWUD Director Jennifer Wenson Maier, Recreation never supplied the documentation to back up its claim and the Robinson-Briggs administration failed to aggressively pursue the matter.

Perhaps the Council can finally get the Administration off the dime and get this long-standing dispute resolved.

One way to proceed might be for the Council to break the problem into bite-sized pieces, and dispose of the easiest parts first.

This would leave any goldbricks to the last -- and the public spotlight.

---

-- Dan Damon

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

Decoding the curious conversation of Councilor Mapp and the CFO

How money is spent always seems to be a puzzle around here.

As the audience at last night's Plainfield City Council was eagerly looking forward to the end of a string of 55 or so resolutions, all of which passed unanimously, a curious conversation took place on resolution R 215-11, which concerned transfers of funds between various accounts, a practice allowed in the final two months of a municipality's fiscal year.

CFO Ron Zilinski was summoned to the mike by Council President Annie McWilliams to help answer questions concerning the transfers.

The whole matter had caught the Council's attention last month, when one of the items Corporation Counsel Dan Williamson brought up at the end of the meeting was a resolution for the funds transfer that included swapping money OUT OF the Recreation Division account. This raised eyebrows because the recent tussle to PUT MORE MONEY INTO the Recreation Division (see my post here).

By last week, the Administration's figures now had Recreation as the RECIPIENT of a transfer of $21,000, all of which set the stage for last night's conversation.

Pressed by Councilor Mapp as to why the $21,000 should be transferred to Recreation after the Council had previously expanded that budget line, CFO Zilinski said there was 'no stated reason' for the transfer.

With Mapp continuing to press, Zilinski said these were Trust Fund monies, which had to be spent on their dedicated use (Recreation) and that the transfer was being requested TO PREVENT MONIES BEING USED FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN THOSE TO WHICH THEY WERE DEDICATED.

While CFO Zilinski appears wanting to do the right thing, one only has to wonder what was going on with the trust account before Zilinski arrived on the scene.

Now, what could that mean?

Whatever it means, it seems likely that we would never have heard this curious exchange of words had it not been for Councilor Mapp's persistence.

At the end of the complicated rearranging of the swaps, Council President McWilliams shot a glance at the Clerk, asking 'Do you have that?'

Without missing a beat, Clerk AJ Jalloh replied, 'Of course, Madam President'.

At which point the audience burst into laughter.

---

• Plainfield Today:  "Mayor's manage-by-surprise style highlighted"

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

Recreation: Time supporters badgered the real culprits, Mayor and Wynn

PCTV taped Council President McWilliams' press conference.

One thing became crystal clear at Monday evening's press conference by Council President Annie McWilliams on issues with the Recreation Division: it is high time for Recreation program supporters to badger Mayor Sharon Robinson-Briggs and Recreation Superintendent Dave Wynn to execute Recreation's responsibilities. The press conference can be seen in a video taken by PCTV and posted on YouTube here.

Saying she was not going to speculate about who was behind the campaign of lies and misinformation which had caused great concern among parents of children using Recreation programs and residents generally, McWilliams did not hesitate to detail examples --

• Applicants for summer camp were being turned away the the Recreation offices, being told there would be no summer camp program;
• Parents were told not to register for the baseball program as 'no Recreation programs are funded beyond April 15';
• Residents were being told the Fourth of July Parade was canceled and there would be no Holiday Tree Lighting and Santa's visit event.

McWilliams also revealed that parents had complained to her that children were being rallied in the elementary schools and told to tell their parents that the Recreation Division was being shut down.

McWilliams emphasized that Recreation Division funding is in place AS THE MAYOR INTRODUCED IT IN HER BUDGET PROPOSAL. The Council reallocated funding among various lines, increasing program funding and cutting the line for staff funding, while leaving the Mayor's requested total intact.

She reiterated that the Council was in agreement that the Recreation Division staff line should be funded, and that it was prepared to consider emergency appropriations to that effect, pending reaching an accord with the Robinson-Briggs administration in a meeting the Mayor had agreed to set up.

That meeting would bring together representatives of the Robinson-Briggs administration as well as Councilors McWilliams, Reid and Storch.

McWilliams stressed yet again that the Council's role is to strike the budget and the administration's is to deploy staff to achieve its management goals within the budgetary constraints.

She noted that the issue had come to the fore because the Recreation Division had resisted accountability in the budget process, only supplying requested information in a limited fashion, and after a public hue and cry. When asked by Roland Muhammad where the figure of 600 for the numbers served came from, McWilliams responded that it came from the Recreation Division itself.

Citing the Council's responsibility to all the taxpayers for accountability from all programs, McWilliams did not shy away from insisting that full accountability will be expected of the Recreation Division going forward, including showing efforts to serve more youngsters as well as adults and seniors.

McWilliams signaled that she was confident the Council and the Mayor could come to an agreement about what the best performance by the Recreation Division in the interest of the taxpayers and all who could be served would look like.

If I were one of the Recreation supporters who spoke so eloquently and passionately at last week's Council meeting, I would feel I had been taken advantage of by Mayor Robinson-Briggs and Superintendent Wynn, and that the Division's turning away of applicants for programs was a sign of bad faith.

Parents, coaches, and all Recreation Division supporters need to press Mayor Robinson-Briggs to resolve this situation in a timely fashion by demanding --

• The Mayor and her team meet IMMEDIATELY with the Council representatives to work out the details of emergency appropriations for the Division's staff line'
  
  
• That the Mayor immediately announce on the City's website, in a letter to the Board of Ed, and in flyers to the public, that --
  
• Baseball season signups are now being taken;
• Summer camp applications are now being taken;
• The July Fourth Parade is being held as scheduled,
• as well as the 2011 Holiday Tree Lighting.

Earlier in the press conference, Council President McWilliams said, 'We need to be able to disagree without demonizing, and to debate without lying'.

Truthfulness and civility. A lot of progress can be made if those two tenets are adopted.

As for those who knowingly lied to the community and manipulated the city's trusting youngsters, perhaps they should read and reflect on Jesus' harsh pronouncement for such manipulation in Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:42, and Luke 17:2.

---

• Council President McWilliams:  "Statement on Council support for Recreation Division"
• PCTV on YouTube:  "Council President McWilliams' press conference"

-- Dan Damon [follow]

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

School Aid: 2010 and 2011 (proposed) compared

Figuring out state aid comparisons is so simple!

 

With Maria (see here) and Olddoc (see here) keeping an eye on Plainfield's school budget (Renata does not discuss Board of Ed BUSINESS on her personal blog), I usually leave it to them to do the digging and reporting.

However, since the vast bulk of the school budget comes from state aid, and Gov. Christie's proposed FY2012 budget INCREASES state aid to most school districts, including Plainfield, I thought to do a simple comparison from the state documents for last year and the proposed budget to see where the increment comes in.

'Simple' comparison? Not on your life.

Going to the State's website, it was easy to find the PROPOSED state aid figures for 2011-12 (see here).

Getting last year's numbers was another matter altogether. After mucking about on the website for a few minutes and not finding anything, I did a search for '2010-11 State Aid', exactly matching the term under which the propose aid is found, except of course for the years. The search returned 11,071 results (see here), ranked by relevancy, with my desired document coming in NINTH, after items going back as far as 2003-04. Guess what, someone changed the file naming protocol since last year. Go figure!

Opening the documents and printing out the Plainfield page should give me an apples-to-apples experience, right?

Guess again. The two years do not line up exactly, as you can see from the table below (links to the data are at the end of this post).
 

CATEGORY OF AID	2011 PROPOSED	2010 ACTUAL
Equalized Aid	88,174,647	88,174,647
Educational Adequacy Aid	1,400,178	1,400,178
Choice Aid	0	0
Transportation Aid	0	0
Special Ed Aid (no line in 2010)	4,186,736	0
Preschool (no line in 2011)	0	17,740,239
Security Aid (no line in 2010)	1,862,131	0
Other Aid (no line in 2011)	0	9,204,511
Adjustment Aid	0	0
K-12 TOTAL	95,623,692	94,378,350
TOTAL CHANGE	1,245,342	?

First off, PRESCHOOL AID is not included in the 2011-12 proposal (which truthfully advertises itself as covering 'K-12'), but is in the previous year. If it has not been cut, as Maria says, you can't figure it out from this data set.

Next up, I noticed that the 2011-12 proposal includes over $4M for 'Special Education Aid' and nearly $2M for 'Security Aid'; with  no corresponding line items in the previous year's aid data.

Last year's aid also included a line of over $9M in 'Other Aid', with no comparable line in the proposed data.

The 2011-12 proposal and Maria both cite the difference as an increase of $1,245,342 for the upcoming year.

That is, in fact, the difference between the figure for last year shown in the 2011-12 proposal, $94,378,350, and 2011-12.

But you'd never figure it out from looking at LAST YEAR'S AID DATA SET (see here), where no such number can be found or interpolated.

So, is it on purpose that we aren't given an apples-to-apples picture year over year?

In the 'Boardwalk Empire' state?

Are you serious?!

---

• "Maria's Blog" | "Doc's Potpourri" -- Both have several recent posts on the school budget.
• NJ Dept. of Education:  "2011-12 Proposed Aid" | "2010-11 Aid"
  

-- Dan Damon [follow]

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

Robinson-Briggs administration reneging on budget 'teamwork'?

There was something surreal about the proceedings at Monday's Plainfield City Council session.

When Council President Annie McWilliams got to the third section of the agenda, Acting City Administrator Dan Williamson gave a budget status update that included circulating to the Council a memo from CFO Ron Zilinski that estimated the City would exceed the 2% budget increase cap by $3.4 million in the upcoming FY2012 budget year. (This is without even considering that the entire overtime allocation for FY2011 is nearly -- if not already -- spent out, as Williamson admitted.)

As jaw-dropping as the amount of the shortfall was the Robinson-Briggs administration's response.

Williamson's announcement generated two immediate queries from Councilors.

Councilor Bill Reid was skeptical, insisting that Zilinski be hauled before the Council to explain himself. All along through the last budget cycle Reid seemed unwilling to face the long-term, structural fiscal problems the city faces and showed an unwillingness to take on the fiscal discipline needed -- all the while railing against his own property taxes.

Councilor Storch, on the other hand, wanted to know from Williamson when the 'team approach' to the budget which he proposed (see here), and the Council adopted, would begin.

Williamson's answer?

'The Administration will begin the team approach at some point', he said, beginning to sound like his predecessor Marc (I'll-get-back-to-you-on-that) Dashield.

The whole thrust of the Council's approach in the past few months has been that things are SO SERIOUS, and of SUCH A STRUCTURAL NATURE, that year-round budget planning offers the ONLY HOPE of coping with the City's fiscal crisis.

In her remarks, the substance of which she had not shared with Council President McWilliams before being given the privilege of the floor, Mayor Robinson-Briggs COMPLETELY AVOIDED ANY MENTION of the serious budget shortfall.

Robinson-Briggs instead focused on the Council's failure to confirm her PMUA nominations, splashing gasoline on the rhetorical fires by asserting that her nominees 'feel discriminated against'.

She then proceeded to tell the taxpayers in attendance that there were many 'free services' undertaken jointly by the PMUA and the DPW that they may be unaware of, and cited a cleanup of the Baptist and Methodist cemeteries on Plainfield Avenue (which she incorrectly identified as 'city-owned'). All I have to say is if the cleanup took place while workers were on the clock, there was nothing 'free' about it -- unless Her Honor is rewriting the dictionary.

And all the while no mention of the elephant in the room, the $3.4 million projected revenue gap to be met.

As if this weren't enough, after Robinson-Briggs spoke and the Council got back to its agenda, Acting City Administrator Williamson produced three proposed resolutions from the Administration calling for EMERGENCY APPROPRIATIONS that would in effect roll back the budget struck by the Council, with further potential consequences ferreted out by Councilor Storch.

The three resolutions -- none of which had enough support among Councilors to be put on Monday's business meeting agenda -- were different formulations for restoring monies to various combinations involving the Mayor's appropriation, Purchasing and Recreation.

Councilors McWilliams and Storch reminded all that this would mean EVEN MORE LAYOFFS for the FY2012 budget, which Councilor Reid was reluctant to agree would be the case.

Upon close questioning by Councilor Storch, it came out that if the LAYOFFS ALREADY CONTEMPLATED by the FY2011 budget were not effected within 120 days of the State's approval, a NEW LAYOFF PLAN would have to be submitted -- meaning that all savings intended by the adopted budget would be obviated.

I suspect chicanery by the Robinson-Briggs administration.

Which hardly portends well for the idea of BUDGET TEAMWORK envisioned by the Council.

The Courier noted such a conciliatory atmosphere at the Council reorganization and the Mayor's State of The City Address that its story was titled 'Plainfield leaders pledge cooperation in 2011' (see here).

Seems that Mayor Robinson-Briggs' interpretation of 'cooperation' is the same as 'my way or the highway'.

So, what's new?

---

• Councilor Storch:  "2012 Budget Planning Resolution"
• Courier:  "Plainfield leaders pledge cooperation in 2011"
  

-- Dan Damon [follow]

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

Mayor Robinson-Briggs proposes a criminal act at budget hearing

Robinson-Briggs make outrageous proposal at budget hearing.

Drama at the budget hearing Monday night? You betcha!

Plainfield Mayor Sharon Robinson-Briggs put the icing on the cake by proposing a criminal act.

Here's what happened.

After the public hearing on the proposed FY2011 budget had closed at 8:59 PM, the Council began its comments preparatory to the vote.

There were two main points of discussion: the Recreation Division and folding purchasing responsibilities into the CFO's office.

Three councilors -- Rivers, Reid and Burney -- got into hot water by discussing what amounted to personnel matters, despite being warned by Council President McWilliams.

Councilor Rivers repeatedly brought up the shift of $30,000 funding in the Recreation Division from salaries to program expenses, asking if the Director wasn't being cut to part-time. McWilliams and Mapp answered that the Council does not set personnel decisions; it allocates funds to the Administration, which is then responsible for how it handles those matters.

Councilor Reid wanted the $30,000 in Recreation moved back to salaries. However, he crossed the line in pressing not to have Purchasing folded into the CFO's office by mentioning the CFO's 'health problems'.

Councilor Burney took a different tack on the $30,000 and began discussing personnel.

Council President McWilliams finally intervened, saying the Council could not legally discuss the layoff plan, bringing it to a halt.

After Burney finished outlining his objections to the budget, McWilliams gave Mayor Robinson-Briggs the floor to deliver her comments on the proposed budget.

Before getting to the substance of her comments, Mayor Robinson-Briggs asked videographer Brian Cox to delete Councilor Reid's comments on the CFO's health.

Chairperson Mapp objected loudly, saying that was illegal.

Mapp reiterated the point when his turn for comments came, reminding everyone that the videotape is a public record and that tampering with it is a criminal act.

I have to give the Mayor points for realizing Councilor Reid had crossed the boundary of what can be discussed, but to suggest curing that by committing a crime?

Either Robinson-Briggs knew she was proposing a criminal act, or she didn't.

Either way we have a problem.

---

-- Dan Damon [follow]

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

Budget drama tonight?

Plainfield's City Council's final meeting of 2010 is tonight, at 7:30 PM in City Hall Library.

The agenda setting portion (for the January  3rd reorganization meeting) will share billing with the FY2011 budget hearing, which is set for 8:00 PM.

Will there be some drama?

Hey, this is Plainfield! What do you think?

Linda Carter's resignation, effective today, comes as a surprise to many, especially with the crucial budget vote still to be taken.

Without Carter, there are only six Councilors, five of whom must vote together to adopt the budget.

Readers of Councilor Burney's blog (see here) have been warned he is poised to vote AGAINST the budget tonight.

His argument -- which includes NEW ITEMS he did not bring up in the Council's public discussion of the budget amendments last week -- is that he believes the 'CoC' (certificate of compliance) program is a 'non-core' service and should be dispensed with rather than folding the Purchasing Division into the CFO's office.

(As someone who made his living for years in the real estate business, I can attest the CoC inspections can be a pain in the butt and sometimes well beyond what folks would consider reasonable conditions are placed upon the parties to the sale of a property. That being said, I well remember -- as Councilor Burney cannot, since he was not in Plainfield at the time -- the downward spiral of the conditions of three quarters of Plainfield's housing stock WITHOUT ANY CHECK on conditions at the only pressure point that exists -- the point of transfer of a property. It was a heated discussion and homeowners, real estate professionals and other weighed in. Having heard all sides, the Council adopted the present system. What would make us decide it is 'not a core service' at this point?)

Councilor Burney might want to reflect on the fact that the 'CORE SERVICE' OF PURCHASING is NOT being abandoned; it is being kept but moved elsewhere. So what's the argument?

So, with Carter gone and Burney set to vote against it, the remaining five members of the Council will all have to vote FOR the budget or see all the carefully crafted savings go up in smoke as the process is re-started, including a new layoff plan that will have to include more people since all savings are calculated on a budget being adopted tonight. (A point which Bibi Taylor repeatedly made to all parties during the budget deliberations.)

Drama.

But, since it's Plainfield, to be expected.


PS: Just for fun, type 'budget drama' (without the quotes) into a Google image search and see if you recognize any image in the first two or three rows.

---

CITY COUNCIL BUDGET HEARING AND AGENDA MEETING
Today | December 27
Time is 7:30 PM
City Hall Library
515 Watchung Avenue

---

• Councilor Burney:  "Budgeting: A December hurry-up?"
  
• Plainfield.com:  "Agenda: 12/27/2010"
  

-- Dan Damon [follow]

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

School budget community meeting sheds light

Acting Plainfield schools superintendent Anna Belin-Pyles hosted a community meeting on the school budget process at the BOE administration building on Myrtle Avenue last night.

Business administrator Gary Ottman presented an overview of the budget process and both the challenges and opportunities facing the District for FY2012. (While there were more than enough handouts for attendees, I am hopeful the complete PowerPoint presentation will be put online for the community to view.)

As a small group gathered to begin (Belin-Pyles, Ottman, board members Wilma Campbell and Renata Hernandez, the Courier's Mark Spivey, several District staff members and myself), it was a relaxed atmosphere and remained so throughout the evening as, eventually some more staffers and a few parents arrived, as well as board member Pat Barksdale and fellow blogger Maria Pellum.

This was NOT a workshop on the actual budget, but an overview of the BUDGET PROCESS, and it was helpful in several regards.

We learned that the process itself is actually already under way: Principals and District administrators are already at work on their budget proposals, which will be consolidated and presented as a rough working budget by Belin-Pyles to the Board of Ed in January.

The budget process calendar is already laid out --

• on March 17 the District learns what the state aid figure will be for FY2012;
  
• JUST FOUR DAYS LATER, on March 21, the proposed budget is due in the County Superintendent's office;
  
• and on March 29, a public hearing must be held;
  
• the voters then cast an up or down vote on the budget at the School Board election, which in 2011 is on WEDNESDAY, April 27 (yes, Wednesday).
  

Ottman noted that though the budget projected for FY2012 is flat at $145 million, structural increases over which the District has no control (salary raises, benefits, and health increases -- that are expected to come in at around 10%) and the pressures on the expected state aid generated by the state's difficult fiscal position make the budget preparation a stressful and fraught exercise.

Secondly, the District is facing the runout of President Obama's 'stimulus' (ARRA) funding next year. This funding has been used nationwide to underwrite the continuation of teaching positions.

As if all this were not enough, the situation is made more complicated by allocations which must be made out of the District's funding for the city's charter schools -- of which there may be yet one more on the horizon.

While the District must therefore try to DO MORE with FLAT STATE AID, the portion of the budget which must be made up by locally raised taxes will increase. This is a requirement of the new school funding law championed by Plainfield's Assemblyman Jerry Green.

This means that the challenging times for both the District AND Plainfield taxpayers will continue at least for the next fiscal year, no matter what changes are ironed out between our Republican governor Christie and the Democratic-controlled Legislature.

I was disappointed at the show of interest on the part of the public, but it must be said that if it weren't for Maria blogging about it, I doubt I would even have known the workshop was scheduled. While the flyer was posted on Renata's blog, that was during the day of, and after I had checked all the blogs for the CLIPS posting. No use that I can detect was made of the Courier's new microsite, on which the District could have published a notice of its own devising for free.

Somehow the District must find the will to better get the word out for events such as these, which are so useful to the public. Just having a passing notice on the District website is obviously not enough to do the trick.

Unless, of course, the District is not interested in public participation.

P.S. The one question I thought of after I got home was how the settlement for former Superintendent Steve Gallon will impact the budget.


(Apologies for the late post, we have had a power outage on the West End for some time this morning. --DD)

---

-- Dan Damon [follow]

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

Tonight's Council deals with DCA double-cross

Is working with Christie's DCA becoming a matter of climbing staircases to nowhere?

Has the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) double-crossed Plainfield over the city's proposal for the FY2011 budget that puts forward furloughs and reductions of full-time staff positions to half-time?

Whether it is truly a double-cross or just Christie-era bureaucratic hardball, City Council is faced tonight with having no option but to approve a new layoff plan, one without furloughs and cuts in hours, one with only layoffs.

So, the state is encroaching on the ability of municipalities to govern themselves?

This will not make anyone happy -- unions, Council or administration.

As Calendar Year towns struggled earlier this year to get their budgets adopted, the press was filled with stories of town after town getting concessions from its employees in the form of salary freezes, furlough plans and givebacks on contract items.

Does the new stance mean that Christie's DCA is going roll back all these already-worked-out agreements?

Might it be time for Mayor Sharon Robinson-Briggs to align Plainfield with other towns in the same situation and fight back?

---

Special City Council Business Meeting

Tonight | 8 PM

City Council Chambers / Courthouse
Watchung Avenue at East 4th Street

---

-- Dan Damon [follow]

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.h

Budget Committee finds high cost-per-client for Seniors, Rec and PAS

Cost-per-client for services gives George a real headache.

Members of the Citizens Budget Advisory Committee made their presentation and recommendations to the Plainfield City Council at last night's meeting.

Leading off with an overview of the CBAC and its mission, chairperson Susan Kilduff then handed off to members Charles McRae and Jeannette Criscione who presented detailed recommendations to the Council.

The entire PowerPoint presentation is to be made available for download on the CBAC blog (see here).

A few points really caught my attention --

• Recreation: $700,000 appropriation. By its own reckoning, the Division only serves FIVE PERCENT of its target population (the 2000 Census shows 9,397 youths between ages 5 - 18), at a cost of $1,489 per client;
  
  
• Plainfield Action Services: $295,000 appropriation. Services 325 or FOUR PERCENT of the 2000 Census count of 7,476 individuals below the poverty line, at a cost of $907 per client; and
  
  
• Senior Services: $575,000 appropriation. Services 140 individuals or THREE PERCENT of the 4,402 residents over 65 according to the 2000 Census (the percentage is actually lower, since one can join the Senior Center earlier than age 65), for a cost of $4,107 per client.

The report questions how Plainfield can sustain such funding levels for such low participation/service rates.

You will certainly want to read the entire report and its recommendations.

---

• Website:  "CBAC Blog"
• Census:  "Plainfield, NJ: 2000 Census Data"
  

-- Dan Damon [follow]

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

Council has concerns on oversight, plans for Information Technology

Best practices are to base IT projects on a detailed Needs Assessment.

In a probing back-and-forth with Plainfield's Information Technology Manager Chris Payne at last night's budget deliberations, the City Council expressed concerns about oversight and plans for implementation of a lengthy list of IT to-do items grouped under five goals (including some points made in my post of yesterday here).

While generally supportive of Payne's efforts, the Council had plenty of questions. With not only IT (including the city's networked computers, servers and internet access) matters, but also the website and the cable TV station, Payne has plenty on his plate.

The discussion did not clarify exactly which of all these areas Payne has direct competence in and in which he would need to rely on others for technical assistance.

A simple question from Councilor Mapp was quite illustrative of the problems at hand. When Mapp asked when Payne would get the budget documents on the city's website, Payne replied 'as soon as I get them', which left everyone wondering why Payne had not been instructed to put the budget docs online before this. (The gap has been filled somewhat by Councilor Burney's having scanned them and put them on his website, but it leaves unaddressed the question of why they weren't put on the city website in the first place.)

Following up on Mapp, Councilor Carter opened a line of questioning that made it clear that IT, as currently configured, stands outside the department structure laid out in the city's charter.

Councilor Storch, initially pressing for reporting to the City Administrator, pointed out that with IT reporting to Mayor Robinson-Briggs, there were the problems that Plainfield's Mayor is a part-time position and that the Mayor is not equipped as a manager of such a technical undertaking as IT. Councilor Reid seconded Storch's comment that IT should not report to the Mayor's office.

In further discussion, the Council pressed forward with the idea that this should be remedied through an ordinance placing IT in a department -- Finance and Administration was suggested.

With respect to the IT goals, Storch was supportive but cited what he considered 'missing pieces' -- specifically the lack of time frames for any of the goals. Storch also pressed that the shared services component should be comprehensive and include the Library, PMUA and Housing Authority in addition to the City and the schools.

One avenue of questioning that was opened but never really concluded was how things get put on the city's website (and, at another point, how the decision is made as to what is taped for the CATV station). At each point, department heads and the Mayor were mentioned as being in the mix, but no plan or criteria were mentioned. Establishing criteria for what should go on the website (and be taped at city expense for the CATV station) would doubtless improve the offerings and empower those responsible (maybe even speeding the process up a bit?).

Looking over the materials in the IT presentation, I am concerned that it still lacks the DETAILED INFORMATION necessary for the Council to make wise decisions in regard to IT.

There is no DETAILED NEEDS ASSESSMENT.

Such a NEEDS ASSESSMENT would include --

• a detailed inventory of all the IT assets and resources, including complete specs on all equipment;
• complete details on all Internet services, including contract lengths and costs;
• detailed lists of the skill sets, competencies and certifications of all personnel;
• detailed lists of the responsibilities and assignments to be covered by all personnel;
• a detailed assessment of the needs NOT COVERED by the equipment and personnel at hand;
• timelined recommendations of steps to address any UNMET NEEDS in equipment and personnel.

Amounts are requested for CONSULTANTS ($100,000) and HARDWARE/SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE ($50,000), but there is no DETAILED breakdown of what these figures are based on and EXACTLY what consultants are needed for and what maintenance needs to be done.

Further, there are requests to INCREASE STAFFING in both the IT and the Media/Communications sides. Without knowing why it is thought more staff is needed -- are there COMPETENCY GAPS among current staff? is it a matter of VOLUME OF WORK, and if so in what exact detail? -- the Council cannot possibly understand whether the request is reasonable or not.

Councilor Burney was first to comment after Payne's presentation, saying that 'if we had done this five years ago we would not have some of these issues'.

Burney made me recall exactly what position the City was in five years ago, when he was also a Council member.

In the beginning of Mayor Robinson-Briggs' first term, the Council endorsed her decision to engage consultants (QuadTech) to handle IT and the city's website (see links to my detailed coverage at the end of this post; I still think there was criminality involved which should have been pursued).

The Council followed the Mayor's lead with little or no resistance and the result was an imbroglio of massive proportions culminating in the spending of large sums of taxpayer monies without Council authorization (where I think the criminality comes in), in the end leaving the City high and dry, with a botched IT mess and a website that was COMPLETELY USELESS AND UNWORKABLE for the better part of a year. Burney was in the mix, though his remark last night suggests he has forgotten all about it.

At one point, Council President McWilliams said the Council needed to remember 'we're building something from nothing'.

While that may slightly overstate the case, my concern is that the information on which the Council is being asked to make some weighty financial decisions here is too vague for them to act wisely. No one should get carte blanche, IT included.

It is perfectly fair to ask IT how the Council can support its recommendations without the details it needs, and why, after nine months, those details are still not forthcoming.

At the end of Payne's time on the hot seat, Council President McWilliams remarked that he could not come before the Council the next time 'with no improvement'.

I'm suggesting NOW is when the Council needs to press for improvement -- of the information on which they are to base a funding decision for FY2011.

---

• Plainfield Today --
• "Information Technology: How will we know we're getting our money's worth?"
  
  
• "The QuadTech 'Deal'"
  
• (1) A 6-figure contract-less deal
• (2) What was it the City wanted?
• (3) What was QuadTech to deliver?
• (4) The 'extra' page - sloppiness or fraud?

-- Dan Damon [follow]

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

Information Technology: How will we know we are getting our money's worth?

Robinson-Briggs' proposed increases for Information Technology.
(Click on image for larger view, or to print.)

When Plainfield Mayor Sharon Robinson-Briggs hired an 'Information Technology Manager I - Information Processing' in February of this year, there were high hopes for straightening out the city's confusing IT situation, to which Robinson-Briggs added looking after the city's website, cable TV operations and public information responsibilities.

(The fact that Mayor Robinson-Briggs refuses to place IT under one of the departments as the city charter requires ought itself to be an item of concern to the Council, which has a certain leverage while the budget is being struck. Maybe this is the time to squeeze?)

As Bernice reported in April (see here), the new IT Manager outlined at a Washington Community School forum his short-term goals --

...objectives for the next three to six months include creation of one central network to connect all departments and divisions, overhaul of the city's web site, migration to a "plainfield.gov" address instead of "plainfield.com," an auto attendant for the city's phone system, a citywide telephone notification system and more...

To date, nine months later, we have not been told how any of these have been met.

At this past summer's City Council 'retreat', the IT Manager gave a slide presentation with an ambitious overview of the work needing to be done to address the city's information technology needs. It was, however, extremely short on details and could not be said to constitute a 'plan' by any stretch of the imagination. That same presentation seems to be what was given Council members in preparation for tonight's budget presentation.

As I discussed yesterday (see here), the matter of INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 'SILOS' has already come up in relation to the Fire Division and the Inspections Division. Last night, Purchasing Director David Spaulding, in answer to a Councilor's question, explained how having an electronic requisition/purchasing system would lead to both cost savings and better controls.

In addition, I noted that Spaulding's pressentation included an item (B.4.a.) for 'establish[ing] and maintain[ing] a system of asset management for electronic hardware, software and equipment''.

So here we are, nine months after the new IT Manager has taken up his duties, with numerous IT issues being taken up by individual Divisions for want of any IT leadership on the issues.

And with a request by the Robinson-Briggs administration -- while cuts are being made everywhere else -- to INCREASE FUNDING to Information Technology by more than 90% in FY2011 (an over 400% increase in the 'other' funding line), the Council needs to take a hard, close look at what the City is getting for its money. (The budget is online here; IT is on page 33.)

I have not made a secret of my thinking that there is no great need to increase the STAFFING for IT. There is an agency of which I am aware, whose 'footprint' is nearly identical to the City's (about 250 computer seats, over a dozen locations, and a website -- though no cable TV station), and which gets by with 'one and a half' IT persons. Gets by very well, thank you very much.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY is, in the first place, about the TECHNOLOGY of Information, and the cost-efficient management of same.

If there is no DETAILED TECHNOLOGY PLAN in place, how will the Council or the Robinson-Briggs administration know how to assess what direction things are going in and how successful they are?

So first, the Council should settle for nothing less than a COMPLETE, DETAILED and INCREMENTALLY PLOTTED technology plan which sets priorities from both a technology and a long-term budget perspective.

Here are some further questions to which the Council should want crisp, clear answers that would help it understand what kind of bang it is getting for its IT bucks --

• Why don't we still have everyone on a single network?
• Why don't we have a citywide shared services agreement for IT -- including the Library as well as the School District?
• What is the City's contingency plan for IT in case of a disaster?
• Is there an offiste data redundancy/backup plan in place?
• What use and retention policies are in place for email -- for both employees and elected officials?
• What use and retention policies are in place for documents considered public records?
• Concerning cost controls --
• How much money can the city save by going to 'cloud computing'?
• How much money can the city save by using 'virtual machines'?
• How much money can the city save by dumping expensive Microsoft licenses in favor of 'open source' options or Google Apps?

Both the Council and Plainfield's IT future will stand at a crossroads tonight.

Will it be progress by accountability (however painful) or accommodation to vague and hopeful nostrums?

---

• Plaintalker: "Just DoIT"
• Plainfield Today:  "Plainfield budget spaghetti nightmare"
• Maria's Blog:  "Questions on the budget..." -- The complete the budget is available here.
  

-- Dan Damon [follow]

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

Plainfield budget spaghetti nightmare

I've been having this spaghetti nightmare.

As Plainfield's City Council sprints through its budget hearings to try and meet a self-imposed deadline of November 15 for a public hearing, I am having a troubling nightmare about budget 'spaghetti'.

Plainfield's fiscal situation has gotten progressively worse over the past few years, fueled by ever-growing health and pension benefits costs on the one hand and precipitously declining state aid on the other.

(State aid recently has been of such little help, and the conditions placed on it so onerous to Mayor Sharon Robinson-Briggs that she would prefer foregoing it altogether.)

But nightmare concerns a budget process in which the Council is precluded from finding a course of action -- short of layoffs upon layoffs -- that would help the City get 'out of the budget ditch'.

The spaghetti aspect?

When all you see is a bowl of the stuff all twisted up, you never know what is connected -- or NOT connected -- to what.

This was highlighted on two separate evenings last week.

In the Fire Division's presentation, an argument was made for software that would make it possible for the Division (which is responsible for fire safety inspections of properties citywide) to share information mutually with the Inspections Division (which is responsible for enforcement of zoning and other regulations).

The cost to the City is significant in terms of the time fire officials must currently take to go and physically check out the Inspections records. Very commonsense. Long overdue. The same acknowledged by the Council. But who will see that it happens?

The next evening, the matter came up again in relation to the Inspections Division, whose turn it was to face the Council.

Reporting on the budget discussions, Bernice noted that City Administrator Bibi Taylor introduced the 'S' word -- not Dan's infamous eff-less 'shifts', but the other 'S' word: SILOS.

That is one of the nubs of Plainfield's persistent budget problems.

And that night my nightmare began. Everyone is well-meaning, everyone can see the value of solving the issue. The Council could see the benefit. The Administration says it see it, too. But two questions have emerged --

1. Why has the Robinson-Briggs administration not grasped the issue firmly and done something long before this? and
   
   
2. What's the guarantee something will be done now?

That would require a plan, and sadly there is no plan. This is not a knock on Bibi Taylor, who does the best she can under the circumstances, but it is a FAILURE OF LEADERSHIP AND VISION on the part of Mayor Robinson-Briggs, who is responsible for steering our little ship of state.

Tonight the Council will take up the financial side of the city's affairs: tax assessment, tax collection, purchasing, and audit and control.

Can we ever end the budget spaghetti nightmare?

Tomorrow, I will take up the SILOS matter with a possible solution.

---

-- Dan Damon [follow]

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

Jerry and Burney mischaracterize the budget

Can't we just all go digital?

Plainfield Mayor Sharon Robinson-Briggs is slated to introduce the FY2011 budget at this evening's City Council business meeting (including a proposed layoff plan).

Assemblyman Jerry Green and Councilor Rashid Burney have, I think, mischaracterized the budget process.

In a recent post (see here), Jerry said --

Once the Mayor submits the budget to the Council, it is then the Council’s budget.

Councilor Burney, in his weekend post on the budget (see here), which included posting a scan of the document (see here), said --

...once accepted by the Council, it will become the Council's budget and the Council will then be responsible for the entire budget.

While it is true that the Council is responsible for STRIKING THE FINAL BUDGET, in a best-case scenario the Council engages in A CONSULTATIVE AND COLLABORATIVE process with both the Robinson-Briggs administration and with the Citizens Budget Advisory Committee, a group which Councilor Burney championed and which will have another go-round this year.

While it does not surprise me that the Assemblyman overlooks the collaborative and consultative nature of the budget process (these are, after all, NOT his strong suits), I AM caught off guard by Councilor Burney's apparent oversight regarding the budget process.

Council President Annie McWilliams has consistently and frequently throughout the entire year stated a desire to work collaboratively with the Robinson-Briggs administration on the City's business. I am sure she continues to hold this positive and beneficial attitude.

The only way the budget would become the Council's EXCLUSIVELY would be if the collaborative and consultative process breaks down.

I, for one, hope that it does not.

NOTE: While Bernice, Olddoc and Maria thank Councilor Burney for putting the budget doc online (as do I), the FIRST THANKS of course go to City Administrator Bibi Taylor who had to get things in shape in the first place. Thanks to her we have a budget introduction MONTHS ahead of last year's. As for any Councilor scanning documents that OUGHT BY RIGHT TO FREELY AND EASILY AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC, I advocate that the proper thing to do is ask WHY the Robinson-Briggs administration can't just get the stuff online itself. After all, it is created on computers and can easily be converted into PDF files. So why should the public have to rely on a well-meaning elected official (whose task IS NOT providing documents) to go to all the trouble of scanning a paper document that should be available digitally to put the stuff online?

---

CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING

Tonight | 8 PM

City Council Chambers/Courthouse

The Public  is welcome and may speak at the beginning and end of the meeting.

---

-- Dan Damon [follow]

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.