Exactly two weeks after the state wrote Plainfield Mayor Sharon Robinson-Briggs and the City Council concerning its concerns over Plainfield's CFO (Chief Financial Officer) situation, I am pleased to post a copy of the now-infamously missing letter online for the world to read (see end of post).
You will recall that the public only became aware that there REALLY was a letter after Councilor Mapp dragged the admission from City Administrator Marc Dashield and Corporation Counsel Dan Williamson at Monday's special council meeting (on that meeting, see Dan here, Bernice here, and Olddoc here).
Though both acknowledged they were aware of the letter, neither was able to explain why the Council had not received a copy of the letter, nor why the Mayor had not forwarded same to the City Clerk.
Though the letter has since surfaced (amid suspicions the Robinson-Briggs administration wanted to keep it under wraps until after the election), the issues is raises are still with us.
The three questions that bother me most are --
- If having a certified Chief Financial Officer is one of a municipality's CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED OFFICERS (as with tax assessor, tax collector, municipal clerk, etc.), why has the Robinson-Briggs administration not filled the office with a permanent, certified appointment after a nearly two-year vacancy?
- What is the quality of the legal advice that the Robinson-Briggs administration is getting for $159,500 per year -- if it was getting ANY on this matter -- that Her Honor could offer the Council resolutions for 'ACTING' or 'INTERIM' appointments which contravene state regulations and cannot legally be made. (Sadly, the Council has to rely on the Administration's statements that what it is doing is legal and by-the-book, since the Corporation Counsel evidently feels no compulsion to protect the public's interest in this matter.)
- Lastly, there is the question of whether the MISUSE OF A PERSON'S SIGNATURE STAMP rises to the level of criminality. In the next to last paragraph on the first page, it comes to light that the Robinson-Briggs administration has been using an employee's signature stamp as co-signer on municipal checks even though the employee is NOT the CFO. The employee expressed her concern to the State, and rightly so -- her certification is put at risk by the reckless behavior of the Robinson-Briggs administration in using her signature stamp improperly. But more than that, the question arises in my mind whether the Robinson-Briggs administration's actions in this matter rise to the level of 'uttering a false instrument', knowing that the use of the signature stamp on municipal checks was in violation of DCA regulations. Should the Council call for an independent investigation of the matter, or turn over the entire affair to the Attorney General's office?
Members of the public having questions about Robinson-Briggs' conduct in the matter may prefer to ask their questions at the League of Women Voters candidates' forum next Wednesday, rather than wait for the next City Council meeting, which will occur AFTER the November election.
Letter-DCA-On-Plainfield-CFO-situation-091008
Wednesday - October 28. 6:30 PM and 7:30 PM. LWV Candidates' Forum. The Plainfield chapter of the League of Women Voters will present its candidates' forum in two segments: at 6:30 PM, candidates for the 22nd District Assembly seats; at 7:30 PM, candidates for Mayor and the Ward 4 Council seat. At Emerson Community School, East Third Street at Emerson Avenue.
- Plainfield Today: "Plainfield mayor covering up criminal financial deception?"
- Plaintalker: "State questions CFO process"
- Doc's Potpourri: "Back from Oz"


















