 |
The Mayor makes her move. |
Mayor Sharon Robinson-Briggs has advanced the plot by -- as everyone in town by now knows -- VETOING two Council ordinances passed on second reading at last month's business meeting. Not one, mind you, but TWO!
The ordinances were concerned with 1) getting timely information on spending into the Council's hands, and 2) lowering the bid threshold, hopefully leading to more public bids (the Council has expressed concerns about the lack of public bidding on sundry contracts).
Olddoc and Bernice have picked up on the 'timeliness' of Her Honor's veto, which I am sure will occupy at least some of the Council's time this evening.
Here is the relevant section from the City Charter (taken from Councilor Burney's online charter here) --
2.9 Ordinances; vetoOverlooking the anachronistic sexist language, there are two concerns: 1) the timeliness of the rejection, and 2) the grounds for the Mayor's objections.
- Ordinances shall be prepared, introduced, considered, and acted upon as required by law. No ordinance may be enacted without the affirmative vote of a majority of all the councilmen.
- Ordinances adopted by the council shall be submitted to the mayor, and shall within 10 days after receiving any ordinance, either approve the ordinance by affixing his signature thereto or return it to the council by delivering to the city clerk together with a statement setting forth his objections thereto or to any item or part thereof. No ordinance or any item or part thereof shall take effect without the mayor's approval, unless the mayor fails to return the ordinance to the council within 10 days after it has been presented to him, or unless council upon reconsideration thereof on or after the third day but not later then its next regular meeting following its return by the mayor shall by a vote of 2/3 of the members resolve to override the mayor's veto."
While I AM interested in whether Her Honor was timely in her veto, I am equally interested in what she found so objectionable.
What can possibly be wrong with giving the Council timely financial information?
What can possibly be wrong with encouraging public bidding for contracts expending money from the public purse?
Hopefully, all will be made clear at tonight's Council meeting.
The Council will have more than one option at its disposal.
As for the War and Peace drama, the Robinson-Briggs administration might do well to ponder Charles-Joseph Minard's famous graphic representation of Napoleon's defeat at Moscow (see here full size).
 |
Minard's famous depiction of the fate of Napoleon's army. |
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SESSION
7:30 PM Tonight
City Hall Library
7:30 PM Tonight
City Hall Library
-- Dan Damon [follow]
Posts
4 comments:
All I can say about the mayor is "off with her head." I doesn't seem that she is using it anyway. Of course of crooked and devious mayor isn't looking out for Plainfield, but for her own interests. I hope the City Council overrides her veto and forces this corrupt mayor to do her job or leave.
Whatever happened to the state making the mayor appoint a CFO. I hope the City Council will request one from the state and why is the state giving our wiley, but incompetent mayor more time. Whatever happened to accountability. I want to see Sharon Robinson-Briggs recalled and nothing less.
Where is Chris Christy when we need him. The council sent a resolution to the State and the state did not respond. Why? I know why because it's the Mayor making all the mistakes, and you have Assemblymen Green making political scams on the state side to stop them from coming to Plainfield, What a big disappointment. I am so sick and tired of the political bull. It helps no-one in the city of plainfield no one at all. This administration is raping us and no one is trying to stop it. I say to Council President McWilliams hold your head up you are doing a excellent job.
Great BOB!!
Now that you said - " off with her head " she's going to need her personal armed body guards back again...way to go Bob!
Councilwomen Linda Carter what are you going to do. The citizens of Plainfield are looking for council member's that will hold administration accountable. There was a $20,000.00 check taking from an IT line Item and now the administration do not want council to view the checks written. I say to the rest of the council member's over turn that VETO. The taxpayer's of plainfield are tired of this nonsense. Councilwomen Carter I will not be voting for you in November we need no more rubber stamps on the Freeholder Board. I don't know why the democratic committee keep moving this useless council member's to be Freeholder's. I say to all Plainfield take your VOTE serious in Novemeber. Let's send a strong message to our democratic Chairmen.
Post a Comment