Mapp proposal on layoff powers ignites firestorm, puts Council on the spot

Here we are again, trying to figure out "just and capable".

CORRECTION: Monday's meeting was for agenda-setting; the business meeting is next week. As Plainfield's City Council meeting was breaking up after its March 4 business meeting, a union member stopped me on the way out and said, "I cannot see Mayor Mapp supporting this proposal if he was still on the Council and Sharon [Robinson-Briggs] was still mayor."

That was a thought that hadn't been expressed publicly during the many comments made by the public at two points during the session.

The "proposal" of course is Ordinance M2019-07, which would eliminate the Council's prerogative of approving any layoff plan submitted to the Civil Service Commission.

After much public comment and some questions raised by Council members (especially Councilors Storch, Hockaday and Davis) with clarifications by Corporation Counsel David Minchello and Mayor Adrian O. Mapp, the Council voted 6-1 (with Davis voting 'no') to advance the ordinance to a first reading at next Monday's business meeting. (If passed then, it would still need to be passed at a public hearing and second reading in April.)


Most of the public that spoke were members of the city's several unions -- the PMEA, the PMMA and firefighters in particular (the police were at a PBA convention in Atlantic City).

The unions are deeply skeptical of the motive(s) behind the proposed ordinance, suspicious that the Mapp administration is preparing for both a major layoff and to outsource functions currently performed by city employees.

WHY IS THE COUNCIL ON THE HOT SEAT?

The practice in question -- of the administration submitting a proposed layoff plan to the City Council for approval -- has been in the Municipal Code since 1969 -- the year the previous Charter was adopted.

That is 50 years without fuss and bother. And, as the union member said above -- can you imagine Mapp as a councilman supporting a request by Mayor Robinson-Briggs to give up a Council prerogative?

The Council ought to proceed with caution. Once given up, this prerogative would probably never return.

Just because everything is lovey-dovey between the Council and THIS administration is no guarantee that this will be the state of affairs forever.

So, this is a crossroads moment for the Council, one in which a seemingly small decision may change the course of matters forever. That is a heavy responsibility.

In any event, if the Council is concerned to save itself from the flak of being responsible for the final say on a layoff plan, they are mistaken.

Layoffs in Plainfield have always been tied to the budget process (usually as an effort to avoid or minimize a tax increase). The Council of course has the power of the purse, so they cannot escape responsibility if they adopt a budget that includes layoffs. There is no escape. There is only the question of giving away a long-held prerogative.

WHY SHOULD THE COUNCIL GIVE UP ITS PREROGATIVE?

The Mapp administration is arguing that the proposed ordinance would align Plainfield with the Faulkner Act communities and that none of them have a provision similar to Plainfield's.

Is this a red herring?

The Faulkner Act has been around since 1950. It gives those municipalities which adopt it as a charter a menu of options for setting up their local governments -- including how and when officials are elected, whether or not elections are partisan, and all sorts of operational possibilities.

There are four options under the Faulkner Act of which the Mayor-Council option the Corporation Counsel references is only one. There are 67 municipalities that follow that particular option.

There are Faulkner Act communities that do not match with Corporation Counsel's statement.

Besides that, of the state's 565 municipalities the vast majority are organized as boroughs (218) or townships (144). In townships and boroughs -- nearly two thirds of NJ municipalities -- the layoff authority rests with the governing body.

Also, we should consider that the Faulkner Act was in effect and well-known when Plainfield's special charter was revised in 1969 -- meaning that the Faulkner Act was taken into account and not chosen. AND that the provision for Council in relation to layoffs was made with full awareness of the Faulkner Act.

Lastly, Plainfield has recently gone through a charter revision in which the voters elected a commission of five who labored for months over a revision -- only finally enacted last year by the Legislature.

According to members of the charter study commission, at no time during the revision process did the Mapp administration express interest in either BECOMING a Faulkner Act municipality, OR writing any specific Faulkner Act provisions (for example, layoffs) into the revised charter.

So, then all we seem to be left with is that Plainfield does things differently. Is that sufficient reason for such a momentous change? If it ain't broke, why fix it?

Let's hope the Council ponders before it takes final action.



HOW THE UNIONS SEE THE SITUATION

The unions have quite a different perspective.

For them it is about their members' livelihoods.

For them the signal came last in February when the Mapp administration proposed laying off the city's 9-1-1 operators and outsourcing the jobs.

When the Council failed to take up the layoff resolution, the Administration posted 9-1-1 jobs as PART-TIME, meaning the employee could not make a living at the job and would have no benefits.

Many members view Mapp's plan as a first step to either turn full-time employees into part-time employees and thus rid the City of the cost of benefits and pension contributions -- OR open the door to outsourcing of large swaths of the city's workforce.

In what world would those outsourced jobs -- even if offered to laid-off city employees -- equal what they have now? None that I can think of.

The unions are bound to protest sharply.

What was notable in the public comments on Monday evening in opposition to the ordinance were the number of long-time supporters of Mayor Mapp who came to the mic and denounced the plan, darkly threatening electoral consequences.

How much political capital is Mayor Mapp willing to burn over this issue?


City Council meets at 7:00 PM (note the new time) Monday, March 11 in the Council Chambers / Courthouse at Watchung Avenue and East 4th Street. Parking available on the street and in the lot across from Police Headquarters.

NOTE: I have seen officers in patrol vehicles allow Council attendees to turn onto 4th Street in front of Police Headquarters to enter the public parking. Exiting is no problem. Be cautious.

---

  -- Dan Damon [follow]

View today's CLIPS W 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.