(Updated) Has Priano's "Mapp" video exposed him to a lawsuit?

Screenshot of video from Priano's "Queen City Pride"
Facebook page. This ... is a smocking gun?

Priano also posted this photo ... but
what does it "prove"?

NOTE: Post updated at 9:46 AM to include the photo from the Facebook page.

It is no secret that Timothy Priano is not a fan of Plainfield Mayor Adrian O. Mapp.

Priano is a regular at City Council where he berates the members over an old performance bond issue with the duCret Art School property.

(First, duCret has no claim or standing in relation to the performance bond put up by a developer who went bust; and second, the Council has no authority or role in settling the dispute. Oh, did I mention that his comments are captured and broadcast by PCTV? Silly me.)

Priano's latest escapade, though, seems to have crossed a line that would leave him exposed to a lawsuit should Mayor Mapp wish to pursue one.

Apparently on Sunday (December 16), he posted to his "Queen City Pride" Facebook page (see here) a photograph and a brief video (6 seconds long) with the tag --

"Mapp's house using a DPW worker to decorate his house!"

The grainy, low-quality video is shot from a car driving by the mayor's house, in the rain. The quality is so low that all that can be made out is a person with their back to the street futzing with something near the shrubs at the front of the house.

You cannot tell if it's a man or a woman, nor see a face or any identifying features. It appears the person is wearing a yellow rain slicker (it was raining, after all).

The photo, though of better quality, shows a person obscured by a ladder -- I could not even tell if they were facing the camera.

That is all that can be said with any certainty.

So, for Priano to allege that the Mayor was using a DPW worker to put up Christmas decorations is waaaaay over the line.

Using city workers to provide services to an elected official on the city dime is an indictable offense.

Joey Torres, the former mayor of Paterson, went to prison for using city workers -- who were paid overtime -- to perform work at his home and the business of a relative (see more about Torres here).

That was after NBC Channel 4 ran an exposé based on camera footage obtained by a private investigator.

It seems that Priano may have followed his usual ready-shoot-aim mantra, where he jumps to conclusions before investigating matters thoroughly.

If you're going to accuse Mayor Mapp of breaking the law, you damn well better offer better video and photo than this and identify an employee by name.

Further, if the video was shot on a Sunday, as the Facebook page suggests, you would also have to prove that the person was not only an employee, but was on the clock at the time.

All this seems a bit too much for Priano to bother with.

And Mayor Mapp has to suffer an unjust accusation based on flimsy "evidence" -- with more than 600 views of the accusation.

This is hardly a confidence builder in Priano, someone who puts himself forward as a champion of the community.

---

 -- Dan Damon [ follow ]

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



About Cookies: This blog is operated by Google, which uses cookies to improve the user's experience. By continuing to read this blog you agree to their use.

9 Myths about separating families at the US border -- busted

Listen to audio of separated children crying for their mothers.

Because of the crisis involving the separation of infants and children from their parents when they arrive at the US border seeking asylum, I am stepping aside from my Plainfield focus today to reprint a Facebook post by Cal State - Fullerton professor Michelle Martin, PhD, who teaches and writes on the subject of immigration. You can find the Facebook post here. I have formatted her post to make it easier to read.

(Note that even though President Trump issued an executive order today (Thursday) stopping the practice of separating families, the government has no protocol for reuniting the thousands of families already separated (see CNN story on that issue here).

Here is Martin's Facebook post, and note that she provides links at the end of each section to further information undergirding her statements --

Have you heard that children were separated from their parents under Obama & Clinton? Then you need a little Facts vs Myths lesson. Michelle Martin, PhD Cal State Fullerton summed up the most important FACTS:

There is so much misinformation out there about the Trump administration's new "zero tolerance" policy that requires criminal prosecution, which then warrants the separating of parents and children at the border. Before responding to a post defending this policy, please do your research...As a professor at a local Cal State, I research and write about these issues, so here, I'll make it easier for you:

Myth 1: This is not a new policy and was practiced under Obama and Clinton

FALSE. The policy to separate parents and children is new and was instituted on 4/6/2018. It was the brainchild of John Kelly and Stephen Miller to serve as a deterrent for undocumented immigration, approved by Trump, and adopted by Sessions. Prior administrations detained migrant families, but didn’t have a practice of forcibly separating parents from their children unless the adults were deemed unfit.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1049751/download?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

Myth 2: This is the only way to deter undocumented immigration.

FALSE. Annual trends show that arrests for undocumented entry are at a 46 year low, and undocumented crossings dropped in 2007, with a net loss (more people leaving than arriving). Deportations have increased steadily though (spiking in 1996 and more recently), because several laws that were passed since 1996 have made it legally more difficult to gain legal status for people already here, and thus increased their deportations (I address this later under the myth that it's the Democrats' fault). What we mostly have now are people crossing the border illegally because they've already been hired by a US company, or because they are seeking political asylum. Economic migrants come to this country because our country has kept the demand going. But again, many of these people impacted by Trump's "zero tolerance" policy appear to be political asylum-seekers.

https://www.npr.org/2017/12/05/568546381/arrests-for-illegal-border-crossings-hit-46-year-low

Myth 3: Most of the people coming across the border are just trying to take advantage of our country by taking our jobs.

FALSE. Most of the parents who have been impacted by Trump's "zero tolerance" policy have presented themselves as political asylum-seekers at a U.S. port-of-entry, from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Rather than processing their claims, they have been taken into custody on the spot and had their children ripped from their arms. The ACLU alleges that this practice violates the Asylum Act, and the UN asserts that it violates the UN Treaty on the State of Refugees, one of the few treaties the US has ratified. This is an illegal act on the part of the United States government, not to mention morally and ethically reprehensible.

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/21/us/meatpackers-profits-hinge-on-pool-of-immigrant-labor.html

Myth 4: We're a country that respects the Rule of Law, and if people break the law, this is what they get.

FALSE. We are a country that has an above-ground system of immigration and an underground system. Our government (under both parties) has always been aware that US companies recruit workers in the poorest parts of Mexico for cheap labor, and ICE (and its predecessor INS) has looked the other way because this underground economy benefits our country to the tune of billions of dollars annually. Thus, even though the majority of people crossing the border now are asylum-seekers, those who are economic migrants (migrant workers) likely have been recruited here to do jobs Americans will not do.

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/Opinion/2016/10/26/Donald-Trumps-wall-ignores-the-economic-logic-of-undocumented-immigrant-labor/2621477498203/

Myth 5: The children have to be separated from their parents because there parents must be arrested and it would be cruel to put children in jail with their parents.

FALSE. First, in the case of economic migrants crossing the border illegally, criminal prosecution has not been the legal norm, and families have been kept together at all cost. Also, crossing the border without documentation is a typically a misdemeanor not requiring arrest, but rather a civil proceeding. Additionally, parents who have been detained have historically been detained with their children in ICE "family residential centers," again, for civil processing. The Trump administration's shift in policy is for political purposes only, not legal ones.

See page. 18: https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/ms-l-v-ice-plaintiffs-opposition-defendants-motion-dismiss-doc-56

Myth 6: We have rampant fraud in our asylum process the proof of which is the significant increase we have in the number of people applying for asylum.

FALSE. The increase in asylum seekers is a direct result of the increase in civil conflict and violence across the globe. While some people may believe that we shouldn't allow any refugees into our country because "it's not our problem," neither our current asylum law, nor our ideological foundation as a country support such an isolationist approach. There is very little evidence to support Sessions' claim that abuse of our asylum-seeking policies is rampant. Also, what Sessions failed to mention is that the majority of asylum seekers are from China, not South of the border.

Here is a very fair and balanced assessment of his statements: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/oct/19/jeff-sessions/jeff-sessions-claim-about-asylum-system-fraudulent/

Myth 7: The Democrats caused this, "it's their law."

FALSE. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats caused this, the Trump administration did (although the Republicans could fix this today, and have refused). I believe what this myth refers to is the passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which were both passed under Clinton in 1996. These laws essentially made unauthorized entry into the US a crime (typically a misdemeanor for first-time offenders), but under both Republicans and Democrats, these cases were handled through civil deportation proceedings, not a criminal proceeding, which did not require separation. And again, even in cases where detainment was required, families were always kept together in family residential centers, unless the parents were deemed unfit (as mentioned above). Thus, Trump's assertion that he hates this policy but has no choice but to separate the parents from their children, because the Democrats "gave us this law" is false and nothing more than propaganda designed to compel negotiation on bad policy.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-democrats-us-border-migrant-families-children-parents-mexico-separate-a8401521.html

Myth 8: The parents and children will be reunited shortly, once the parents' court cases are finalized.

FALSE. Criminal court is a vastly different beast than civil court proceedings. Also, the children are being processed as unaccompanied minors ("unaccompanied alien children"), which typically means they are sent into the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHS). Under normal circumstances when a child enters the country without his or her parent, ORR attempts to locate a family member within a few weeks, and the child is then released to a family member, or if a family member cannot be located, the child is placed in a residential center (anywhere in the country), or in some cases, foster care. Prior to Trump's new policy, ORR was operating at 95% capacity, and they simply cannot effectively manage the influx of 2000+ children, some as young as 4 months. Also, keep in mind, these are not unaccompanied minor children, they have parents. There is great legal ambiguity on how and even whether the parents will get their children back because we are in uncharted territory right now. According to the ACLU lawsuit (see below), there is currently no easy vehicle for reuniting parents with their children. Additionally, according to a May 2018 report, numerous cases of verbal, physical and sexual abuse were found to have occurred in these residential centers.

https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-obtains-documents-showing-widespread-abuse-child-immigrants-us-custody

Myth 9: This policy is legal.

LIKELY FALSE. The ACLU filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration on 5/6/18, and a recent court ruling denied the government's motion to dismiss the suit. The judge deciding the case stated that the Trump Administration policy is "brutal, offensive, and fails to comport with traditional notions of fair play and decency." The case is moving forward because it was deemed to have legal merit.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-07/aclu-suit-over-child-separations-at-border-may-proceed-judge

---

 -- Dan Damon [ follow ]

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

$396,000 settlement with Yates in North Avenue demolition sure to raise eyebrows at Monday Council meeting

A suspicious fire gutted 117-25 North Avenue
on the night of December 17, 2011. Image by Dan.

The building t 117-25 North Avenue after the fire.
It stood this way until March 20, 2015. Image by Dan.

 

A resolution on Monday night's Council agenda (R 369-17) proposes to settle all claims in the botched demolition of 117-25 North Avenue, which was damaged in a December 2011 fire, for an eye-popping $396,000.

The whole matter of the demolition of the building caused a huge brouhaha when it was done in 2015 -- the weekend before a special Council meeting that had been called to deal with it.

The late Eric Watson, the Director of DPWUD at that time, was on the hot seat to explain the timeline -- which involved several gaps of time that could have been construed as negligence if there were a true emergency -- and the manner in which the demolition contract was awarded.

The inicdent got extensive coverage on Plainfield Today (see here, here, and here) as well as Bernice's Plaintalker II (see here) and Olddoc's Potpourri (see here). I also posted online a packet of materials supplied by the office of Mayor Mapp containing correspondence, inspection reports, quotes and other matter about this property and the demolition (see here).

The Council -- at that time unsupportive of Mayor Adrian Mapp -- refused in a special meeting on March 23, 2015, to 1) authorize the demolition, 2) appropriate $250,000 for the expected costs as requested by the Administration, and 3) award the demolition contract to Yates.

Plainfield realtor John Campbell, who was present, remarked that he had heard a figure of $50,000 for the complete job (perhaps just for the sub-contractor?).

In the event, the work had already been done, and the Council's refusal to act set the City up for a lawsuit. According to a post on Olddoc's Potpourri (see here), resident Alan Goldstein avers the only invoice the City has received from Yates was for work done up to 3/24/15 for $75,000 (see here).

After Yates' subcontractor caused damage to the adjoining building, the City proceeded to finish the demolition and fill with the services of another contractor -- Yannuzzi.

So, the big question is: How did the City get to a $396,000 settlement when the only records we seem to have are for $75,000? That would equal a markup of 528%.

Not bad from Yates' point of view, I'm sure. But an outrage to Plainfield taxpayers.

Hopefully, all will be explained tonight.

---

  -- Dan Damon [follow]

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

(Board of Ed) Hiring of Human Resources Director on tonight's agenda

Bernice Marshall Simmons was formerly HR Director of the
Perth Amboy Public Schools.

 

The hiring of a new Human Resource Director is on the Plainfield Board of Education agenda.

The candidate is Bernice Marshall Simmons, who was formerly HR Director at the Perth Amboy public schools.

Marshall Simmons (then just Marshall) settled a lawsuit against the Perth Amboy district in which she claimed she was discriminated against and subjected to a hostile work environment because she was African American in a district that is 87% Hispanic.

Her LinkedIn profile shows her as at the Perth Amboy job through the end of the 2013-14 school year. The district settled her suit for $170,000 in November 2015, according to the NJ Civil Settlements blog (see here).

Marshall alleged that the Perth Amboy superintendent, after only four months on the job, curtailed her duties and hired another person under a different title. It was pointed out in her defense at a public board meeting that Marshall's was the only department in the Perth Amboy schools that got a perfect QSAC rating at that time.

Marshall's LinkedIn profile shows that she has been with the Newark Public Schools in the interim.

The interesting question here is not her qualifications, which appear to be top notch, but her willingness to come into another district with a large (and growing) Hispanic student population.

While the current Superintendent is also African American, that is certainly no guarantee going forward.

The Plainfield Board of Education's business meeting is slated for 8:00 PM (ahem!) this evening in the PHS Cafetorium. The agenda is online here. Use the Kenyon Avenue parking lot.

---

  -- Dan Damon [follow]

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

Can Plainfield's November elections be hacked?

A Sequoia voting machine, similar to those used throughout NJ.

 

Plainfield's recent experience with ransomware got me to thinking about this year's November election and whether our voting system can be hacked.

There are actually several components of the election system, each with its own vulnerabilities.

The Sequoia voting machines used in New Jersey are subject to hacking -- if they are connected to the Internet. Thankfully, as the result of a lawsuit by a Rutgers professor (see an NJTV story here), they are not connected to a network. That may slow down the tabulation of results, but that's a fair tradeoff considering it means that any hacking would have to be done on a machine-by-machine basis, which does not seem to me to be an efficient way for a hacker or hackers to attack the system.

But manipulating voting results is not the only area that is problematic.

The "front end" of the election system -- the gathering, verifying, storing and distributing of the voter rolls -- is an entirely different matter.

Suppose that the goal of hackers was not to determine an outcome, but to disrupt -- or even prevent -- the casting of ballots in the first place.

When you go to the polling place, the first thing you do is verify that you are a voter registered to vote in that district. That's what those huge ledger-like books, in which you signature must match the one from the previous election, are for.

That information is stored electronically and printed out to make those books.

If the systems are not well designed or secure, hackers could disrupt the voting process by altering, scrambling or deleting individual voting records.

Or, even worse, if there was a successful ransomware attack, the County's entire voter lists would be copied and encrypted and the original files destroyed. Then, a ransom would be demanded for the key to the newly encrypted files.

Under such a scenario, it is possible to imagine that it would be impossible to even conduct an election.

Are you worried yet?

Though authorities are inclined to tell us they have everything under control and not to worry, I am skeptical.

Just something to think about...

---

  -- Dan Damon [follow]

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

Is Council dealing from the bottom of the deck?

A card sharp prepares to deal a card known to the dealer,
but unknown to the audience, from the bottom of the deck.

When the Plainfield City Council has hiccups over business it has previously considered, one has to wonder just what is going on.

Last Monday's agenda-setting session had two such items: a proposal for the long-discussed and long-planned-for South Avenue redevelopment project, and a salary ordinance that would pave the way for a telecommunications employee training program.

What happened to lead the Council to balk at moving these items forward? We may never know for sure, but folks can be forgiven for the suspicion that some members of Council are dealing from the bottom of the deck.

Sidebar: BOTTOM DEALING

Dealing from the bottom of the deck is a card sharp's way of controlling the deck and misleading spectators by dealing a known card from the bottom of the deck by sleight of hand, making it appear as if it was drawn at random from the top of the deck.

You can view a tutorial on all types of bottom dealing by magician Xavier Perret on YouTube here.

Council President Rivers alluded to a 'conflict' during the discussion of the salary ordinance regarding the telecommunications trainees (MC 2015-22), but she did not explicitly state the nature of the conflict. Nor did Councilor Taylor in her lengthy remarks.

What they did do, both of them, was to insinuate that something untoward was taking place. Taylor, in particular referred over and over to "inequities", "glaring inequities" and the "perception of inequities'.

For those not in the loop, it may have seemed mystifying. But for those who understand the nature of the conflict -- that Council President Rivers has a close family member who failed to "make the cut" on a police aide Civil Service exam -- the question became: What is the Council up to?

Bear in mind a few facts about Civil Service --

• It is designed to insure at least  little bit of fairness in how employees are hired;
  
  
• Civil Service exams are not all that difficult -- they are meant to rank test-takers, not exclude them;
  
  
• The rule that a hiring decision is to be made from the top three scorers has long been agreed upon as fair;
  
  
• As the tests are administered by the NJ Civil Service Commission, they are open to residents across the state -- no mystery there.
  
  
• Unmentioned by Rivers and Taylor is the fact that veterans get an automatic boost in their standings -- is that an "inequity"?
  
  
• There are even NJ Civil Service test prep websites (see here, for example) to coach and help.

So, what is the nature of the "inequities" Taylor and Rivers complained about?

Were any of the Civil Services rules and procedures violated? If so, please specify which ones.

Maybe we need to look at this problem from the other side. Should the City perhaps be more careful of recruiting people who actually have a chance of scoring high on the Civil Service exam?

But perhaps that would violate FEFFAF*.

Seems to me that Civil Service is there to put the teeniest brake on gaming the system.

The question to Councilors Rivers and Taylor is: What do you propose instead?

Opting out of the Civil Service system? A lot of employees would view that as a direct threat to their job security. Does the Council really want to go there?

Disregarding the Civil Service requirement to pick one of the top three and go ahead and appoint Councilor Rivers' family member permanently? And risk and lawsuit and the possibility of a settlement out of the public purse -- plus legal expenses?

Meanwhile, the heart of the matter is that Public Safety Director Carl Riley is trying his damnedest to recruit some civilian workers to be able to put more cops on the street (as opposed to filling these desk assignments that could be handled by civilians).

The Council is being no help to getting that done. Why not spend a little time brainstorming some ways to recruit capable bilingual civilian candidates?

And stop dealing from the bottom of the deck.

City Council meets tonight, 8 PM at the Council Chambers /Courthouse, Watchung Avenue at East 4th Street.

*FEFFAF: Full Employment For Family And Friends, an old New Jersey public employment custom.

---

  -- Dan Damon [follow]

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

Jerry Green screws Plainfield (Part 3)

Where are they now? Police officers campaign with
Sharon Robinson-Briggs in 2005.

 

Among the boozers, losers and hustlers that Plainfield Dem chair Jerry Green populated the city's administration with under his hand-picked marionette Sharon Robinson-Briggs (you didn't really think she knew all those people, did you?!), three circumstances come to mind as we wrap up this pre-election look at how Jerry Green has screwed Plainfield.

The first two have to do with things he didn't do, and the third with something he did do. Today, we look at Jerry Green's role in Plainfield's public health and safety.

EAT IN PLAINFIELD: AT YOUR OWN RISK!

Courier News reporter Sergio Bichao last summer found that hundreds of Plainfield restaurants and stores that handle food had not been inspected in a timely fashion under Mayor Robinson-Briggs (see story, with interactive map, here).

At the same time as the story broke, the Mapp administration was trying to get Council to approve the appointment of a health officer. Councilor Gloria Taylor was adamantly opposed, as was then-councilor Bill Reid.

Why?

Turns out that among the first things Jerry Green wanted Robinson-Briggs to do as his puppet-mayor was to fire then-health officer Jadwiga Warwas, who was deemed too independent-minded.

After Robinson-Briggs got rid of Warwas (not without losing a lawsuit demanding back pay and reinstatement), she simply left the position vacant except for a fix of a part-time temp for a short period of time.

When Mapp tried to rectify the situation by appointing a certified and competent health officer, he was stymied by Green's opposition (through mouthpieces Taylor and Reid) because Proctor's husband (and former mayor of Rahway) is someone Green is on the outs with.

Bichao found that one popular fried chicken joint had not been inspected since 2009, and uninspected locations including school cafeterias, soup kitchens and a nursing home.

In case you think this is small potatoes, note that some 3,000 people die annually in the US from preventable food-borne illnesses.

Health inspections not only attend to the presence of rats, roaches and other vermin in a food-service location, they see to it that food is kept and dishes washed at proper temperatures, as well as the proper venting of gas cooking ranges and ovens.

PUBLIC POOL SAFETY? WHY BOTHER!

Imagine newly hired Recreation Superintendent Veronica Taylor's surprise when she went to open the pools for the 2014 season, the first following eight years of Robinson-Briggs administration, to find a mountain of issues that had to be resolved in quick order for the pools to open (see my post at that time here).

Turns out that under Robinson-Briggs' long-time rec superintendent David Wynn, no state-required inspections of the pools had been made. Nor were state-mandated logs of pool supervision, hours and use kept by Wynn or his staff.

Further, Taylor's initial inspection of the city's three public pools revealed that maintenance had been let slip. Resurfacing was going to be needed for at least one pool.

Another had had the deep end of the pool improperly filled in and covered.

The pools were lacking state-mandated intake filter screens to prevent swimmers with long hair from being drowned by having their hair sucked into the outlets.

But Jerry Green and Robinson-Briggs had defended Wynn to the last minute, until Council was presented with evidence of fraud and theft over the course of his tenure. The choice was to turn the matter over to the County Prosecutor.

What did Jerry Green do? Let Wynn simply resign and walk away with no charges.

JERRY TURNS COPS INTO ERRAND BOYS, PUNISHES GOOD COPS

Among the first things Jerry Green wanted Robinson-Briggs to do once she became mayor was get rid of Plainfield's popular -- and New Jersey's first Hispanic -- police chief, Ed Santiago.

Green even went so far at to lambaste the Council publicly when it dragged its feet on the matter. Once the Council finally adopted an ordinance abolishing the post (see here), Robinson-Briggs jumped the gun by naming Martin Hellwig as the new Police Director (in addition to Public Safety) the day after the ordinance was adopted -- weeks before it legally went into effect.

Not only that, those with longish memories will recall that under Hellwig, Sharon was able to make a case (phony, as it turns out) for 24-hour bodyguards because of a (fictional) death threat (see an overview here).

Reports were rife that the bodyguards were quickly turned into chauffeurs and errand-boys and could be spotted running chores for the mayor --including picking up dry cleaning -- around town. There were even whispers of more intimate assignments.

Besides this flagrant abuse of the police officers, Jerry and puppet Robinson-Briggs played politics with promotions and appointments (see here, and here).

Not only that, in 2009 Jerry Green used the police at a Democratic City Committee reorganization meeting to knock around committeewoman Mari Bonini, who was attempting to sign in to the meeting and drag her out (see here). Turns out Jerry was having a meeting of his rump caucus in violation of party rules.

Then we have the infamous gay hustler hookup scandal of Police Director Martin Hellwig. Not only did he use a city computer on city time to arrange the escapade, he used his city car -- which then broke down, necessitating a tow, which led to the discovery of the incriminating emails.

What happened? The officer who blew the whistle on his little gay caper was suspended and demoted, all with Green's blessing. After huge public outcry, Hellwig was punished also -- with two days suspension.

I could go on, but you get the drift. Jerry Green has a view of public safety that leaves the public on the outside, looking in.

WHAT"S AT STAKE?

As Jerry Green sits at the top of the greased pole of political power, his main goal is not to get shafted.

Elected two years ago as the chair of the Union County Democratic Committee after the ignominious demise of former chair Charlotte DeFilippo, Green has got to prove his mettle in this year's primary election to have a chance of getting the chairmanship for another two years.

Make no mistake, there are sharks in these waters.

Meanwhile, the Plainfield Democratic City Committee seats, on which Green's power as county chair rests, are also up for a vote in the Democratic Primary on Tuesday, June 2.

Green, who after more than twenty years was unable to field a full slate of committee candidates this go-round is facing a strong challenge from Mayor Adrian Mapp's Plainfield Democratic Organization. Not only have Mapp's forces reached out to the Latino community (Jerry has no Latinos on his slate), they have enlisted younger people in the political process -- where most of Jerry's slate is old hands with 40 or more years in the trenches.

A defeat for Jerry Green in the City Committee contest could spell the end for him as Union County chair as well.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

Police officers are sworn to "serve and protect" all the residents. Has Jerry Green shown that to be his view?

When you think of a kid swimming safely in the city's pools, remind yourself it's not thanks to Jerry Green.

The next time you dine -- safely -- in Plainfield, just remember you are safe because of Mayor Mapp, not Jerry Green.

Whether you are a registered Democrat or an unaffiliated voter, your participation on Tuesday can make the difference in Plainfield's future.

You can vote for the candidates in Column C -- re-electing Cory Storch if you live in the 2nd Ward, and electing Barry Goode if you live in Wards 1 or 4. In every ward, you will have an opportunity to elect a male and female friend or neighbor to serve on the Plainfield Democratic City Committee. Those names will also appear in Column C.

If you are an unaffiliated voter (not registered in any political party) you may still participate in the Democratic Primary by signing the voter book at your polling place, thereby indicating your intent to vote as a Democrat.

If you have already voted by absentee ballot Thank You! If not, lay out your schedule for Tuesday June 2 and do your duty. If you're tired of being screwed by Jerry Green, now is the time to return the favor.

---

  -- Dan Damon [follow]

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

New day at the PMUA

TME's David Dziubeck (did I get that right?) making the rate
hearing presentation Tuesday evening.

The feeling of it being a new day at the Plainfield Municipal Utilities Authority (PMUA) was evident at Tuesday evening's annual reorganization meeting.

The reorganization was preceded by a rate hearing for 2015 rates. In his remarks, Executive Director Dan Williamson noted that prior to his taking the helm, an annual rate review had not always been done.

Because state law requires that authorities' budgets must be balanced and the rates calculated on the number of "EDUs", it only makes sense that there should be annual rate hearings.

"EDUs" were explained by Williamson and CFO Duane Young as being the "equivalent of a dwelling unit" -- thus a one-family home is 1 EDU, an 80-unit building is 80 EDUs; businesses and factories are calculated into EDUs using formulas based on numbers of employees.

The rate hearing proposed a 3% reduction in sewer rates. The presentation also explained the basis for raising the connection charges for new construction EDUs from $2,130 to $2,300 per unit. Williamson promised that the rate hearing PowerPoint presentation would be put on the PMUA website (see here).

Discussion by some commissioners of these connection charges revealed that they are not high by comparison with other NJ towns, and also that developers plan the fees into their cost-of-doing business scenarios. These fees are assessed at the time of construction, not when development is first proposed (which may be several years earlier).

New commissioners also were introduced to New Jersey's budget process, where the state reviews all governmental and authority budget proposals and must approve them before the agency can then adopt them. Consequently, budget documents will carry two dates: the date of introduction and the date of final passage. Young noted that the state had only approved the budget verbally and by email that very afternoon, after some last-minute tweaking.

The reorganization meeting proved to be very interesting, offering a hint of a new day at the PMUA. Charles Eke, an alternate, whose vote was not needed Tuesday evening, participated by speakerphone.

Gone were the contentious duo of former Councilor Malcolm R. Dunn and his sidekick and developer Cecil Sanders, replaced now by new commissioners Henry Robinson, a retired Fire Division battalion commander, and Michele Graham-Lyons, a financial planner. Together with Charles Tyndale, appointed by Mayor Mapp in 2014, there appears to be a majority prepared to challenge business-as-usual assumptions at the solid waste agency.

Tyndale was elected chairperson, with Graham-Lyons as vice-chair, Robinson as secretary and Carol Ann Brokaw as treasurer.

That things were going to proceed differently from now on became clear early on in the agenda when Tyndale balked at taking up the annual professional services contract appointments (engineering consultants, general and labor counsel, and a financial services consultant), saying that he wanted the new members to have a chance to vet the proposals and that he himself had questions about some of them.

After consultation with a staffer, PMUA Counsel Leslie London averred that the decision could be put off until next month.

Most of the rest of the reorganization resolutions -- concerning annually required appointment and designations -- were passed unanimously on roll call votes.

Graham-Lyons did abstain on the two budget resolutions, which may indicate that she did not want to vote on a matter in which she had not participated previously.

Two interesting items were --

• A resolution settling the severance pay lawsuit by former CFO James Perry in the amount of $200,000. Commissioners Mitchell and Brokaw, who had been the only ones to oppose the settlement with former employees Watson and Ervin orchestrated by Dunn, Sanders and then-commissioner Alex Toliver, said they were voting "yes" reluctantly; and
  
  
• A resolution eliminating health benefits to the two grandfathered commissioners -- Brokaw and Mitchell -- effective May 31.

Councilor Cory Storch, the only member of Council present, introduced himself as "a ratepayer first, and a Councilor second", congratulating the new members and urging continued work on rate reduction.

Mayor Mapp also offered congratulations to the new board and pressed them to take up his proposal to "make the City the PMUA's primary customer", allowing the City to bill the sewer and solid waste services in the property tax bills. This would, hopefully, allow homeowners to get a tax deduction on their PMUA rates -- which is not currently a possibility.

Former mayor Sharon Robinson-Briggs was also in attendance, congratulated the board and offered her services as "a top notch Number One volunteer" -- whatever that may mean.

My wish list would be for the Commissioners to take up two other pet peeves --

• The time of the business meetings: At 6:00 PM, it is not really a reasonable hour for folks who work; a 7:30 PM start time would show a more positive concern for public participation; and
  
  
• The layout of the room: The "new" layout with the executive staff table in the center of the room and seating for the public and staff around the walls makes it hard to follow the action; it was much better when the executives' table was to one side and there was audience-style seating facing the commissioners.

One last note is the presence of staffers at these meetings. I counted nine staffers in attendance, but only two had any part in the meeting: one person advanced the PowerPoint slides for the presentation, and another dialed in Commissioner Eke on the speakerphone (...eventually).

The question is: Are these staffers being paid on the clock or with comp time for being at these meetings? If so, wouldn't it be prudent only to have staff on hand who actually have items on the agenda? It might be a small savings, but it would send another signal that the Commissioners are watching out for the ratepayers.

Not to mention letting the employees spend an evening with their families.

---

  -- Dan Damon [follow]

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

Citizens Budget Advisory Committee: Hits and misses

As in archery, not every arrow hits the bullseye.

Plainfield's Citizens Budget Advisory Committee is an all-volunteer group of residents who review each year's proposed budget, participate in the budget deliberations and deliver their recommendations to the governing body.

This year's CBAC scored some hits and some misses, which is to be expected from a group that has varying kinds of experience and points of view but often little or no experience of how government actually works.

This year's CBAC chair, Richard Stewart, made a lengthy comment to my brief remarks about the CBAC in yesterday's post and you can read it here.

Mr. Stewart opened his report by remarking on the rush with which the process happened and poor communications with the CBAC about timing and roles. His complaint is justified.

As a creature of the City Council, whose members are supposed to nominate one person each to the CBAC, it is the Council's responsibility (ultimately the Council President's) to see that the process is addressed in a timely fashion, with clarity and transparency. Furthermore, the Council should make available to the CBAC the resources to do its job properly.

This would include access to any records or persons the CBAC needed as well as providing access to copying equipment as needed in the performance of their duties and the preparation of their final report. The CBAC should not have to rely on its members using personal resources to get the committee's job done. (By the way, it is Wednesday and I still do not find the documentation -- including the CBAC report -- on the city's website as promised.)

HITS

The CBAC hit the mark on several items.

For instance, the finding that the Police and Fire Divisions are top-heavy with senior staff (I am less inclined to think this is as severe an issue with the DPW), and finds some top-level staff doing entry-level work. The issue of the police was addressed a decade ago when Mayor Al McWilliams asked the state's Department of Community Affairs to investigate the structure of Plainfield's Police Division and make recommendations. The DCA outlined a structure which reduced and streamlined senior officer slots. Though the Council would not ratify the changes through an ordinance, McWilliams implemented the plan by restricting senior appointments during his term. His successor undid all this -- including creating the position of Police Director in order to eliminate the Police Chief title. (It is ironic that now we are hearing that the Police Director's position should not be funded!)

Another hit concerns the lack of weekend availability of inspectors. As Stewart correctly pointed out, a lot of illegal activity takes place over the weekends, specifically because violators know they can get away with work being done between Friday evening and Sunday night. The CBAC is correct in suggesting that this should be taken up with the unions in order to correct the situation through mutually agreed arrangements.

The suggestion that the Recreation Division might revise its fee structure to be able to better underwrite and expand its activities is a welcome idea. As well as the thought of expanding the Recreation Division's reach to underserved age populations as well as geographically throughout the city.

MISSES

There are some misses.

For instance, the notion that overtime and comp time should be 'reduced and eventually eliminated', as Stewart stated.

This is an area of continual complaint, but also one that is easy for those who work in the private sector to misunderstand. Budgets are attempts to plan for upcoming events. Overtime as a budgetary device is an attempt to cope with unforeseen future circumstances. These include snowstorms, hurricanes, flooding and other items down to the lowly pothole, with all associated personnel costs (police, fire, DPW and other).

All we have to do is recall the damage, power outages and blocked streets of Superstorm Sandy to understand that money must be planned for (budgeted) though we cannot know in advance exactly how much will be needed. This past winter, every NJ community was plagued by a shortage of salt for icy streets -- a result of budgeting that was overridden by events.

While every Administration must be mindful of the potential for abuse and the CBAC is right to be watchful, the idea that overtime can be eliminated completely is fallacious.

Comp time (or compensatory time) is a separate issue. Employees whose contractual obligations are to perform their jobs between specified hours may sometimes be called upon to work outside their contractual terms. What to do? Give them 'comp time' -- hours off from their regular time to cover hours worked outside their contractual obligations.

Two examples illustrate the issue. An inspector cites a homeowner for a code violation. The homeowner chooses to contest the citation in court. The inspector must appear to pursue the city's complaint. The court meets in the evening, after work hours. The Inspector must show up at the time court begins session and wait until the case is heard and their testimony given. How are they to be compensated for their time?

Or what if the Administration thinks that a certain employee should represent the City at an evening or weekend community meeting to answer questions, explain the city's position or participate in a forum? Is the employee expected to do this as a voluntary activity?

Though comp time can be abused and every Administration should be watchful, it is not likely to ever go away completely.

A second miss, in my humble opinion, is the suggestion that the city should look into employing a full-time grant writer.

Back in the day, I sat on the interview committee which hired the previous Director of Community Development. This person came with a background in grant writing and the job description was that they were supposed to be the city's grant writer. What ever happened? Did the CBAC not get to interview the person in this slot? Did the Council skip over the Division?

On the other hand, grants is an area where government differs markedly from the private sector. My experience with several nonprofits as a board member is that one is always scratching the ground, looking for new and different sources of funding for the agency's programs -- often because grants are short-term or project-specific, and an agency's needs are long-term and mission-driven.

With government, on the other hand, most grants are consistently repeated year in and year out. In fact, things are so routine that grant opportunities are published in handy resource guides. In truth, it is less a matter of turning up new sources of grant funding than it is of remembering to follow through each year on the endless round of grant cycles from federal and state sources.

Lastly, the suggestion that Plainfield's public access cable TV station (PCTV) should be 'monetized' (Stewart's term) strikes me as seriously off-base.

In the first place, Plainfield receives annual franchise fees from both Comcast and Verizon. My guesstimate is that these may total in the range of $300-400,000 per year -- the exact figures have not been published. Plainfield, like some other communities, counts these receipts in the general fund and not as set aside for the station in particular.

The very nature of public access television is to NOT be commercialized. It is supposed to be a vehicle for the community's self-expression of its own interests through citizen-empowered programming.

The promise of community access has yet to be fulfilled through PCTV, though it appears to be less a matter of funding than of the implementation of correct policies and procedures. A complete analysis was undertaken by Mayor Mapp's Transition Team, whose full report is online here. (Full disclosure: I chaired the subcommittee which prepared the report.)

If there is a concern to be addressed to 'monetize' the station, perhaps the CBAC should ask why the Council does not designate the franchise fees directly to PCTV.

With regard to discussing staff positions, it is not permissible to discuss the persons themselves only the positions or the Civil Service titles. Civil Service was devised to, among other things, do away with 'government by intimidation' (as Assemblyman Wisniewski so aptly remarked at yesterday's Bridgegate hearing).

Mentioning the gender of the current holder of a position comes mighty close -- in my mind -- to crossing the line. Various Council members have also recently taken to going down this road. The potential is to open the City to the possibility of lawsuits. It would not be amusing for the taxpayers to have to subsidize anyone's loose lips by paying for a settlement in a perfectly avoidable lawsuit.

Let's hope the hastiness with which this year's CBAC was empaneled and the poor communications about expectations and procedures are an aberration and that next year things will go better.

---

  -- Dan Damon [follow]

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