PMUA: Rejected PMUA nominee Eke attacks Storch

Mr. Eke had no problems with New Democrats when Al McWilliams
was mayor, as shown here at the 2000 Ethfest.

Charles Eke, whom the Plainfield City Council declined to confirm to a seat as a PMUA commissioner after his nomination by Mayor Sharon Robinson-Briggs, has a letter to the editor in today's Courier attacking Cory Storch and endorsing Storch's opponent in the Democratic primary (see here).

I am rubbing my eyes with disbelief!

Is this the same Charles Eke who, as Mayor Robinson-Briggs' nominee for a PMUA commissioner's seat, came before the Council and in his public interview had NOTHING NEGATIVE TO SAY ABOUT THE PMUA (see Bernice's report in Plaintalker II here)? The record shows that Rev. Tracey Brown was the ONLY nominee who offered to look at the PMUA with a critical eye.

Is this the same Charles Eke who would have been eligible, as a Commissioner, for health benefits FOR HIMSELF AND HIS FAMILY and made no offer to forego same if appointed?

Is this the same Charles Eke whom I have never seen at a Council meeting except when his nomination was on the agenda for the evening? Whom I have never seen at a PMUA Commissioners meeting ever?

Is this the same Charles Eke who, after failing to be appointed, came to the February Council meeting to harangue the Council over his rejection, labeling those who failed to vote for him as 'unfit for public office' (see Bernice's report here).

Not only is this the same Charles Eke, he displays a level of ignorance about the Council's role which only confirms their sound judgment in not appointing him. Eke proposes --

...[t]he City Council could have taken bold steps towards reform of the PMUA. They could have put out the entire city's garbage collection out to bid. Let Waste Management, let Grand Sanitation and other garbage collection companies bid on this work. Let the PMUA bid on this work and may the best company win.That is the way I would have done it. That is the way any sound businessman would have done it. It's very clear...

Eke completely misunderstands the Council's power.

The Council has no authority whatsoever, given the agreement that established the PMUA, to 'put the city's garbage collection out to bid'.

It has jawboned the PMUA to no visible effect.

It can dissolve the PMUA agreement, but would need some findings of fact to do so -- which the task force to which Eke objects could report back to the Council as findings.

Eke only shows what an ignorant and foolhardy appointee he would have been.

As for Eke's endorsement of Storch's challenger, Tony Rucker, if Rucker doesn't publicly object to this idiotic proposal, you should chalk it up as one more reason to vote for Storch.

P.S.: In the 2009 City Committee races, in which Eke ran for a District seat against New Dem Kieran Anderson, he was beaten 127-23. Can this have anything to do with his antagonism toward the New Dems?

---

• Courier, Letter to Editor: "Charles Eke: PMUA reforms moving too slowly"
• Plaintalker II --
• "Special meeting yields only one PMUA appointee"
• "Rejected PMUA candidate shows ire"
  

-- Dan Damon [follow]

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

Sunshine Week: PMUA gets 'executive session' right on two counts

How about a nice, upbeat post about a Plainfield organization for Sunshine Week?

About fifteen people turned out for the PMUA's board meeting on Tuesday evening. The meeting itself was unremarkable, with a number of items covering routine matters, plus an item on renting some vacant land on Cottage Place and leasing five 'solid waste collection vehicles' on an emergency basis as the current lease is expiring and negotiations for a new one are unresolved (see the agenda here).

However, there was the need for an EXECUTIVE SESSION, and here is where the PMUA gets it right -- as contrasted to both the City Council and the Board of Ed.

FIRST, the PUBLIC MEETING is conducted first and then the Commissioners go into EXECUTIVE SESSION if necessary (as it was Tuesday night).

This comports perfectly with a February 18 appeals court decision (see here) ruling against Rutgers for routinely convening a public meeting for five minutes to then go into executive session, after which returning to a public meeting.

SECONDLY, the PMUA Commissioners adopted a resolution for the executive session that IDENTIFIED THE MATTER TO BE DISCUSSED WITH AS MUCH SPECIFICITY AS POSSIBLE -- in this case to discuss contract negotations on the lease of the vacant Cottage Place lot.

This also perfectly comports with the second portion of the above-cited ruling requiring public notice and the resolution --

"should contain as much information as is consistent with full public knowledge without doing any harm to the public interest"

The Board of Ed's practice in this matter seems to be exactly what the Court ruled against Rutgers for.

At last nights BOE meeting, the agenda (see here) contained its standard first page, announcing the opening  of the public meeting at 6:30 PM, to be closed for executive session at 6:35 PM and resuming the public meeting at 8:00 PM. This is EXACTLY the practice the court ruled against in the Rutgers case.

Additionally, the non-specific language at the bottom of the first page, detailing items to be discussed as merely 'personnel' and 'legal', do not meet the requirements of the court ruling.

To be fair, the PMUA is lacking in an archive of its agendas or the posting of minutes to its website, but it does get this one item right.

Is it time for others to follow the PMUA's good example?

---

• Ledger: "Bill would require local authorities to post budgets, meetings to websites"
• NJ Open Government Notes:  "Court forbids routine 'sequencing' of open and closed sessions"
  
• Sunshine Week:  "Sunshine Week website" | "Wikipedia"
• PMUA:  "Agenda, 3/15/2011" | Board of Ed:  "Agenda, 3/15/2011"
  

-- Dan Damon [follow]

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

Crybabies Cattle Call: PMUA Commissioners meet tonight

 

This is a 'crybabies cattle call': The Plainfield Municipal Utilities Authority's commissioner's meeting is tonight, rescheduled from last Tuesday, March 8.

Those with any theatrical experience recognize a 'cattle call' as an open audition, to which all aspirants are invited.

In the interest of promoting PMUA transparency and accountability, members of the public (aka 'crybabies') are encouraged to attend, despite the inconvenient hour for working ratepayers and those with families to feed (6 PM).

---

PMUA Board of Commissioners Meeting

Tuesday · March 15 · 6:00 PM

PMUA Headquarters
127 Roosevelt Avenue (corner of East 2nd Street)
Parking in the Authority lot or on the street

---

-- Dan Damon [follow]

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

Crybabies Alert: PMUA commissioners meeting rescheduled

Perhaps the Commissioners would prefer modern dress to the traditional toga?

An alert to the PMUA 'crybabies': The Plainfield Municipal Utilities Authority's commissioner's meeting slated for Tuesday, March 8, was abruptly rescheduled in a legal notice dated March 7, which appeared over the signature of Executive Director Eric Watson.

To all those 'crybabies' out there (Chairperson Harold Mitchell's term for ratepayers who challenge the status quo), please be advised the meeting will be held instead on Tuesday, March 15.

No reason was given for the change of date, though it can be noted that it followed on the heels of the surprise announcement of the intentions of ED Eric Watson and Deputy ED David Ervin to step down (CFO James Perry is taking retirement, effective in September). Was the change connected to Watson and Ervin's announcement, or simply another example of a date shuffle which has happened in the past, leading critics to wonder if the moves are designed to discourage attendance by ratepayers.

A little history note to the Commissioners: March 15 is Idus Martii, the Ides of March, a famously unlucky meeting day for Julius Caesar.

---

PMUA Board of Commissioners Meeting

Tuesday · March 15 · 6:00 PM

PMUA Headquarters
127 Roosevelt Avenue (corner of East 2nd Street)
Parking in the Authority lot or on the street

---

-- Dan Damon [follow]

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

Those PMUA 'resignations'? Take with a grain of salt

Plainfielders attending Monday night's Council meeting had an extra special treat: the (undated) 'Press Statement' announcing the coming departures of Executive Director Eric Watson and Deputy ED David Ervin, and the expected retirement of CFO James Perry, and which formed the basis of Mark Spivey's scoop for the Courier (see here).

It is an odd document for a press release: part news item (a list of eight initiatives under way or about to be), part encomium for the departing executives, and part whiny kvetch over the nerve of the public for criticizing the PMUA.

(Would it be unduly critical of me to note that the 'press statement' cannot be found on the PMUA's website, the last press item on which -- see here -- is dated November 23, 2010?)

Maybe Mr. Watson is right, and it is 'time for new leadership'.

As for the allegedly abusive criticism, all I can say is it has seemed pretty mild to me, given Plainfield's history of inventive acrimony.

Which makes me wonder if there's something more than meets the eye here?

Is it possible that Watson and Ervin, inseparable in their departure as they have been in their PMUA careers, are moseyin' on over to some other field of endeavor...together?

And could it also be that the timing has less to do with any public criticism than with an attempt by Assemblyman Jerry Green, who many say is having his 'last hurrah', to control one last time the choice of successor executives?

At any rate, you can be sure of one thing: All you've been told is hardly all there is to be said on this subject.

---

• Courier News:  "PMUA executives stepping down in surprise move"
  

-- Dan Damon [follow]

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

PMUA Commissioner perks: Jerry, DumpPMUA join conversation

 

In this past Friday's Plainfield Today, I raised a rhetorical question -- in light of an expected meeting between the City Council and the PMUA Commissioners -- as to whether it was time for the PMUA Commissioners' perks: a stipend plus gold-plated health benefits (and participation in the Public Employees Retirement System) to be given up (see that post here).

The fact is that Housing Authority commissioners -- who also once received a stipend, but no longer do -- was partly behind my reasoning. The other thought was that local Planning and Zoning Board members certainly have as heavy a responsibility and work as hard if not harder than the PMUA commissioners -- all without remuneration or perks.

Assemblyman Green (or someone writing in his name) took great exception to the suggestion (see here), engaging in an ad hominem attack without addressing the issues I raised. (My partner was indeed a PMUA Commissioner from 1998 to 2006, which fact I have alluded to previously in this blog -- see all entries here -- and is also well-known in the community. My question still stands.)

Assemblyman Green's sharp and immediate reaction -- amounting to a protestation in favor of the status quo -- only underscores my argument that taking away the perks would take away the suspicion that commissioners were chosen because they were friends and supporters of Mayor Robinson-Briggs and Assemblyman Green.

As for the Assemblyman's assertion that he 'does not make the decisions concerning the city of Plainfield', I offer in evidence a Courier News story from 2007 entitled 'King of the Queen City: Jerry Green has become a political power in Plainfield and beyond'.

But Jerry wasn't the only one who decided to join the conversation. I received an email from Philip Charles of DumpPMUA attaching a example of a monthly tally of all the health benefits (and life insurance premiums) for the agency, including the COMMISSIONERS (see the information online here).

If anything, it turns out I have underestimated the cost to the ratepayers of this largesse.

The question remains: Should the matter be brought up by the City Council when it meets with the PMUA Commissioners?

It's interesting to note that the proposed meeting between the Council and the Commissioners, which has been in the works since last summer, and was postponed by PMUA chairperson (and former Plainfield mayor) Harold Mitchell, has now been called off -- unilaterally -- by a letter in the name of the Commissioners included in this week's Council packet.

How any of this advances the PMUA's cause is anyone's guess.

---

• Plainfield Today:  "Time for PMUA Commissioner perks to go?"
  
• DumpPMUA:  "Monthly Commissioner Health Benefit Data" -- The first section is Commissioners.
  
• Jerry's Green's Page:  "Utterly groundless by free public service freely offered"
• Courier News 7/15/07:  "Jerry Green: King of the Queen City: A power in Plainfield and beyond"
  

-- Dan Damon [follow]

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

Time for PMUA commissioner perks to go?

 

Is it time for the cash stipend and ratepayer-funded health benefits for Plainfield Municipal Utilities Authority commissioners to go?

As Gov. Christie zeroes in on waste, fraud and abuse in New Jersey's many public authorities (just today there were reports about the Passaic Valley Water Commission and the North Jersey Water Supply Commission), one item that should be looked at in Plainfield is the $4,500 annual stipend for PMUA commissioners, plus the health benefits for each -- which can run over $12,000 per commissioner annually.

When all other Plainfielders who give their time in public service do so COMPLETELY GRATIS -- without stipends or health benefits -- it seems only fair to ask on what grounds PMUA commissioners should be treated differently.

As a result of notorious abuses in the past, public housing authorities are no longer allowed to give their commissioner cash stipends.

Plainfield's Planning Board and Zoning Board of Adjustment members -- who put in hours that are much longer and more detail-oriented and with meetings that are publicly contentious with great regularity -- do so entirely without any financial consideration.

Wouldn't it be better for PMUA commissioners to serve out of a sense of duty only, and with every suspicion that the seats are awarded as perks to friends and supporters of Mayor Robinson-Briggs and Assemblyman Green left utterly groundless by free public service freely offered?

This is a topic that could certainly be discussed to great public benefit when the Council and the PMUA finally get down to their long-delayed joint meeting.

---

• Bergen Record --
• "Passaic Valley Water Commission records subpoenaed"
• "North Jersey Water Supply Commission: Nothing to hide here"
  

-- Dan Damon [follow]

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

State: PMUA's lack of financial details its glaring website weakness

Despite lack of financial info, PMUA website beats the city's by a country mile.

The Plainfield Municipal Utilities Authority (PMUA)'s lack of financial details on its website (see here) puts it in cahoots with 569 of the state's local authorities that DO NOT POST FINANCIAL INFORMATION to their websites, or 97% of the total of such organizations.

The information is found in a just released report by the State Comptroller's office on transparency in authorities' websites (the full report is available here, in PDF).

All of the state's local authorities are measured against the following criteria --

• Website
  
• Meeting Information (posting of agendas AND minutes)
• Financial Reports (budgets, audits, bills, check registers, etc.)
• Officials Listed (Executive staff, Boards of Commissioners)
• Contact Information (address, phone, fax, emails)
• Mission Statement

Amazingly, at least 195 local authorities DO NOT OPERATE A WEBSITE at all.

Considering that these authorities mostly operate relatively unobtrusively, it is troubling that there is so little ONLINE FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE, given that collectively they spend about $5 billion a year, not to mention many millions in bond indebtedness (for all of which the taypayers are ultimately responsible).

Here is a table of the local authorities with which Plainfielders have some sort of contact --

Agency	Website	Meeting Info Provided	Financial Reports Posted	Officials Listed	Contact Info Provided	Mission Statement Provided
PMUA	Yes	Partial	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
PARSA	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
UCIA	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
UCUA	Yes	Partial	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
HAP	Yes	Partial	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
UCWIB	Yes	Partial	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Agencies (initials above are links to websites): PMUA (Plainfield Municipal Utilities Authority), PARSA (Plainfield Area Sewerage Authority), UCIA (Union County Improvement Authority), UCUA (Union County Utilities Authority), HAP (Housing Authority of Plainfield), WIB (Union County Workforce Improvement Board)

Besides not posting financial information, the Plainfield Municipal Utilities Authority (PMUA) is given only a 'partial' on providing MEETING INFORMATION.

While there is a note on the front page of the time and place of the next Board of Commissioners meeting, I could find no MEETING SCHEDULE on the website. When one looks under THE AUTHORITY |MEETING AGENDA one finds the current/most recent agenda but no others. There is also no option to download (as with the Council agendas), and when printing is attempted, words at the ends of the lines are dropped because what is being printed is the web page (with sidebar) and not the document itself.

While basic contact information is provided, there is NO LIST OF THE EXECUTIVE STAFF and how to reach them (at least as far as I could determine), so I am curious at how the Comptroller arrived at a 'YES' for 'Responsible Official Listed'. Quirkily, the Commissioners are listed under 'Leadership'.

All of this being said, the PMUA website is miles, make that MILES, ahead of the City's in terms of its organization, presentation and efficiency. Missing, thankfully, are the artsy-fartsy gimmicks that strew the front pages of the City's and District's websites (is this what shared services means?), in favor of a straightforward Joe Friday 'just the facts, m'am' presentation which suits me just fine.

The PMUA could take some pointers from the Union County Improvement Authority (UCIA), where there are links DIRECTLY FROM THE HOME PAGE to the Commissioners list, their Meeting Schedule (though it needs to be updated to 2011), Agendas (current), Minutes (through 2010), and Approved Bills.

Further there is an Executive Director's page with contact info (though no email) and a link to a (stale 2008) Annual Report.

Despite all this, the UCIA -- as with all the other local authorities -- fails to post its financial information.

The absolute last-of-the-pack locally is the Plainfield Area Regional Sewerage Authority (PARSA), which can barely be said to have a presence online (the last time anyone updated any info was January 10, 2011). It does, however, list its executive staff complete with emails. You might ask yourself what PARSA is and does, how it affects you and what it costs you as a taxpayer. You might be surprised. Especially if you can get the information from its website.

The Comptroller's report is a valuable tool, and you can find a wealth of links to other online info on its 'transparency' web page (see here).

There are some things related to transparency, however, that the Comptroller DID NOT MEASURE -- most importantly whether the OPRA CONTACT (custodian of records) was listed and any evaluation of the website's ACCESSIBILITY to Internet users with special needs.

Per aspera ad astra, just so nobody rests on their oars.

---

• NJ Comptroller:  "Release: Transparency lacking in websites" | "Report: Online transparency" -- Both are in PDF.
  
• NJ Newsroom:  "Report: 587 authorities less than open with public"
• Ledger:  "Agencies criticized for lack of online transparency"
• Gannett:  "Report: Agencies' websites lacking"
  

-- Dan Damon [follow]

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

Dirty little secret about the PMUA and why nothing is ever resolved

 

The Plainfield Municipal Utilities Authority (PMUA) got folks lathered up at Monday's Council meeting.

Again.

Why does every discussion around the PMUA generate so much heat and so little light?

I have some ideas.

REAL ISSUES vs. RED HERRINGS

Though conversations are as tangled as my 50-foot power cords when I go to trim the hedges, patience helps in sorting them out.

That is not helped much by inanities such as Mayor Robinson-Briggs lecturing the audience Monday evening about 'free services' offered jointly by the PMUA and the City's DPW -- she cited cleaning up the cemeteries on Plainfield Avenue (which, to my knowledge, are NOT owned by the City as the Mayor asserted). As any taxpayer can tell you, there are no 'free' services.

There do seem to be two big items: issues with the Authority (management, rates, service) and the true nature of the PMUA's costs (on which rates are based).

Like the scandal-ridden Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission (PVSC), which is now coming apart under scrutiny, the PMUA has both a proud mission (managing Plainfield's solid waste collection and disposal, recycling, and its sanitary sewer system) and a less attractive 'shadow' side -- it was and is a patronage pit, providing jobs for pols to dispense.

As for patronage, getting a job through a 'connection' is an age-old American tradition -- across the political spectrum and going back to the Founding Fathers. The questions for the ratepayers ought to be: Are the jobs necessary? Are they performed adequately and for fair wages? Are the jobholders free from illegal pressures such as donating to, or working on, political campaigns of their patrons?

These are the questions the PVSC is now facing. No one has yet mustered an in-depth investigation of them in relation to the PMUA.

At the top of the heap are questions about management: its diligence, expertise, and ethicality. While there have been lapses at the PMUA (travel boondoggles, conventions not focused on the Authority's mission, executive perks), the worst of PMUA offenses can't hold a candle to the PVSC.

Councilor Williams reported last night that a meeting she and Councilor Rivers had with the PMUA's Executive Director took place over a two-hour lunch at a Scotch Plains restaurant, a meeting she felt could just as well have been held at the PMUA headquarters in less time. Minor, perhaps, but telling nevertheless.

No one has complained about the PMUA's expertise in handling the Authority's responsibilities. The sentiment expressed Monday (which I suspect is accurate) is that a survey would show residents and ratepayers don't have a problem with the service performance of the PMUA.

But there are plenty of challenges about costs.

APPLES & ORANGES: WHO WILL DO THE HARD WORK?

Having attended the January rate-setting hearing, I can report my impression is that the PMUA was at pains to throw up a screen of 'facts' that yet did little to shed light on its real costs, on which the rates are set.

Those dissatisfied with the PMUA have tended to focus narrowly on two points: How much cheaper a private hauler is to take away household garbage, and the mounting cost of the 'shared services' expenses billed by the PMUA and the perceived unjustness of being forced to pay toward these.

I hold with the English common law tradition that the entire community can be held responsible for certain concerns being addressed, including by taxation as necessary. This has been the justification for everything from roads to public schools to sewers to bonding public works projects.

Keeping the community's common areas free of garbage qualifies, as the courts have ruled.

But, because no one has done the requisite homework, we are left with a battle of apples and oranges.

To be able to shed some light on the situation, we need apples-to-apples answers to the questions around costs, upon which rates are set.

In order to fairly compare the true costs to Plainfield and any other community of the services rendered, we need to be able to filter out the individual segments, for example --

• What are the true costs per household for RECYCLING in Plainfield vs. any other community;
• What are the costs per household  of operating and maintaining the municipal SANITARY SEWER services?
• What are the actual costs per household of COLLECTING and TRANSFERRING SOLID WASTE? (For instance, if a private hauler charges LESS than the PMUA, and that INCLUDES tipping fees at a transfer station, why is the PMUA more expensive?)

This last question leads me to my next point.

THE DIRTY LITTLE SECRET ABOUT THE PMUA

There was an awkward but illuminating moment at the December 28 rate setting hearing (see my report here). A ratepayer has asked whether overall costs would be lowered if the PMUA got out of its contract to use the incinerator in Linden.

Knowing glances were exchanged between the Commissioners, the executive staff and counsel Leslie London. Finally, someone said 'well, yes, but we can't break the long-term contract we have'.

That is the DIRTY LITTLE SECRET ABOUT THE PMUA. I have been told for years that the ratepayers would benefit APPRECIABLY if the PMUA were able to haul its solid waste to the cheapest tipping point, but that it has been bound by a contract forced on it by county political considerations to keep the Covanta-run Linden facility afloat. In recent days, Union County officials have argued that a FORTY-FIVE YEAR EXTENSION of the lease on the Covanta-run county facility would 'save' the 21 towns an estimated $2.1M yearly. First, be wary of that word 'estimate', it's the word the serpent used when offering Eve the apple. Secondly, the savings would not be equally shared, so the PMUA wouldn't even see the 'average' $100,000.

The FIRST AND DECISIVE STEP in getting a handle on PMUA costs is attacking this unfair, unjust and hogtying contract. This is a country founded on free-markets, so why shouldn't the PMUA be able to shop around for the VERY BEST DEAL for its ratepayers?

'STACK' THE COMMISSIONERS?

There was a good deal of back-and-forth last night among the Councilors and between the Council and the Mayor over approving the Mayor's nominees to the PMUA (and, by extension, other agencies).

Council President Annie McWilliams calmly pointed out that the charter says 'advice and consent', and that it is not a simple matter of rubber-stamping the Mayor's nominations.

Councilor Storch pressed both the Mayor and fellow Councilor Bill Reid on the need to have Commissioners who would be 'agents of change' in the management of the Authority. He expressed disappointment that the Mayor's nominees were mostly unable (except for Rev. Tracey Brown) to give thoughtful answers to questions about how to address ratepayers' concerns.

(On the mention of 'change', the Mayor got a dig in, suggesting Storch should be careful talking about 'change' since he is up for election this year. Politics watchers have kibitized for months that two likely contenders for Storch's seat would be Jerry Green protegé Owen Flecther and newly-minted blogger and former Storch challenger Tony Rucker. More on all this later.)

Councilor Rivers repeatedly suggested that Councilors should have to give their reasons for objecting to a candidate. I happen to think that is not good practice, and anyone who follows confirmations at the state or federal level will note that though nominees may be questioned sharply, those who decide more often than not keep their reasons to themselves.

However, if the Councilors were to feel it was IMPERATIVE to break the discriminatory contract with the Linden incinerator, it could be a litmus test in any confirmation votes. And what Mayor in their right mind could oppose saving the ratepayers money? Or nominee either, for that matter?

DUMP THE PMUA?

Learning at the rate-setting hearing that there were fewer than 60 households that have opted out of the PMUA garbage hauling (out of more than 16,000 household units served), it is quite clear there is no tsunami bearing down on the Authority.

If there are valid reasons to 'dump' the PMUA and reabsorb the functions into the City, they would only become clear after an in-depth analysis (see the Apples & Oranges section above). Anyone doing the necessary homework would provide sound basis for further public policy discussion and decision-making.

Barring that, I see no reason to do other than to get the COSTS under control, and the Authority more TRANSPARENT in its operations. (Setting a reasonable time for board meetings would be a start, instead of 6 PM -- when many are still getting home from work, or trying to get the family fed!)

Will we have more light and less heat the next time the subject of the PMUA comes up?

What do you think?

---

• Plainfield Today:  "PMUA: Weather and hearing messy, but Commissioners vote on rates"
• Ledger:  "Union County officials argue 45-year extension of incinerator lease would save $2.1M"
  

-- Dan Damon [follow]

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

PMUA pickup schedule revision and e-waste dates

Schedule revisions take place beginning in April.

 

The Plainfield Municipal Utilities Authority has revised the 2011 pickup schedule (see downloadable form here).

BEGINNING IN APRIL, the schedule will become consistent and easily remembered (for those of us who are creatures of habit) --

• 1st and 3rd Wednesdays: Bottles and cans
  
  
• 2nd and 4th Wednesdays: Paper and cardboard
  
  
• 5th Wednesdays: NO recycles

E-waste

The PMUA has issued the following advisory on 'E-waste' --

E-Waste (electronics) will no longer be accepted in the solid waste or bulky waste collections.  New disposal procedures have been implemented and must be followed to be in accordance with state mandates regarding the collection and disposal of E-Waste.

Starting January 1, 2011 once a quarter on the Fifth Wednesday of the month, you can bring your E-Waste down to the PERC Transfer Station, 95 Rock Avenue, Plainfield for disposal.

March 30th, June 29th, August 31, and November 30th are E-Waste Disposal Dates.

This new law prohibits the disposal of computers and televisions with waste.

Union County also offers recycling options for E-waste and other special collections, including household special waste, tires, used motor oil, fluorescent bulbs, and mobile paper shredding. For details, see the county's web page here.

---

• City Website:  "Revised PMUA 2011 Pickup Schedule" (PDF)
• County Website:  "2011 Recycling Events"
  

-- Dan Damon [follow]

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

PMUA 2011 pickup schedule a mess

So, whose advice DO you follow? The city's? The PMUA's?

I decided it would be unfair to give the Plainfield Municipal Utilities Authority a kick in the shins last week while it was in the throes of a rate increase hearing.

After all, those who came out to the hearing were already fired up -- why add fuel to the flames?

Well, the rate hike is over and all bets are off.

When the 2011 solid waste and recycles pickup schedule arrived in the mail in late December, I was pleased that the PMUA had at last got itself organized to get the info in the ratepayers' hands in a timely fashion.

Then I took a close look at the calendar. Wow!

Having gone to great lengths to organize a rational schedule over the past few years (paper products on the first and third Wednesdays; bottles and glass on the second and fourth and nothing on the fifth), the 2011 schedule received by 15,000 or so Plainfield households is chaotic, to say the least (see the online copy here).

Not only that, there is plenty of countervailing information out there -- while the city posts a copy of the schedule that was mailed out, the city's own calendar for 2011 carries out the old (correct?) schedule, advising putting out  papers on the first Wednesday, etc; the PMUA's own website still has the the 2010 schedule up.

Talk about higgledy-piggledy.

As it stands now, only April, May, June, September, October and November follow the papers-first routine; all the other months have bottles/cans first.

What to do?

I suggest taking the PMUA at its word and putting out what is called for in the mailer.

Another ratepayer suggested they were going to put everything out and let the PMUA have its pick.

Let's just hope this doesn't mean there is a summons on its way to you for the wrong putout.

That would be a truly great public relations move.

---

• City of Plainfield:  "2011 PMUA Schedule" (PDF)
  
•  "PMUA" | "DumpPMUA"

-- Dan Damon [follow]

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

PMUA: Weather and hearing messy, but Commissioners vote on rates

The weather outside was frightful, but inside, the Plainfield Municipal Utilities Authority's rate hearing Tuesday night was somewhat less than delightful.

Mark Spivey, the Courier's Plainfield beat reporter, sat behind me -- you will want to read his story as soon as it is up; I am going to focus on some issues with the PMUA's argument and the hearing process itself. [12:50 PM: Courier story is up, see here.]

What started out as a seemingly tightly organized presentation became messier as the evening wore on, not entirely because many of the residents in attendance were angry in varying degrees.

The evening got under way with video depicting ILLEGAL DUMPING, evidently from a security camera on a PMUA building and pointed down Cottage Place toward Roosevelt Avenue. It was a vivid visual underscoring the problem the PMUA argued was at the heart of the proposed changes in SHARED SERVICES RATES, which cover (among other things) cleaning up behind illegally dumped items throughout the community.

Unfortunately, the video's impact was mostly lost because it was not well integrated into the meat-and-potatoes of the evening, the presentation on the budget and the proposed adjustments to the schedule of solid waste service charges and fees.

The PowerPoint presentation, honchoed by three PMUA consultants, covered the proposed budget (including both revenues and expenses) and allocations between 'shared services' and 'solid waste services' to billable entities (households, businesses, etc.), as well as testimony that the whole was developed in a way that was both 'necessary and reasonable'.

PMUA counsel Leslie London then opened the hearing for public cross-examination of the testimony from the consultants.

Ratepayer attendees, between 15 and 20, palpably unhappy and with inchoate criticisms, peppered the consultants and senior staff with questions, including --

• How were the changes supposed to curb illegal dumping? (We hope it will encourage ratepayers to use the two free bulk pickups per year instead of illegal dumping.)
• What percentage of illegal dumping is attributed to non-residents vs. residents? (Because the picture is fragmented -- PMUA, police and Publlic Works are separately involved -- there is no complete answer.)
• Was Plainfield compared to other communities with utilities authorities to give some perspective? (No.)
• Would overall costs be lowered if the PMUA got out of its contract with the Union County Utilities Authority? (Yes, but we can't break the long-term contract.)
• Please explain individual expense items such as 'water', 'training', 'employee events', 'wireless services', etc. (Each was explained.)

There were questions for which no ready answers were available, such as explaining the difference (approximately 1,000 units) between billable households last year vs. the proposed budget, and why sewerage units were approximately 3,000 more numerous than solid waste units.

At length, ratepayer questions were exhausted and Counsel signaled the Commissioners were going  into executive session.

This created something of a tumult, with audience members believing the Commissioners meant to vote on the resolution out of public view.

Ms. London quickly retreated and announced the vote on the resolution would proceed.

Before it did, Commission chairperson Harold Mitchell invited commissioners to comment.

This turned out to be unfortunate.

Commissioner Tracey Brown, after getting some clarifications from the consultants, then turned to criticizing the audience, saying that she didn't think they understood the severity of the problem in the 4th Ward as she did, that she felt the audience reaction to the video of illegal dumping was inappropriately lighthearted, and that she had welcomed the opportunity to become a commissioner just because illegal dumping in the 4th Ward was so rampant (including in front of her church on South Second Street).

Then Commissioner Alex Toliver began his comments, which were shortly interrupted by an outburst from ratepayer Bob Chanda. The two got into a shouting match which Mitchell and London finally quelled after threatening to eject Chanda -- but not before he got the last word in.

No other commissioners offered comments and the resolution was read by Ms. London and went to a vote.

The commissioners voted unanimously to adopt the rate change. No surprise to this observer.

If I were a Commissioner or a member of the PMUA's executive staff, I would have expected that the only people who would turn out on such a nasty evening would be those who have an issue with the proposed rate increase. No surprise there.

But the hearing could have benefited from better organization by those who were running it.

Here are some suggestions --

1. Have OUTSIDE EYES Review Everything

• This could have made the meeting much more effective, with less confusion -- and resulting feelings on the part of attendees that the PMUA is not being forthcoming.
• For instance --
• If the video is important, integrate it into the process with a well-scripted voice over.
• Avoid confusion by reviewing, and correcting, vague words, lingo and shop-talk:
• 'water': is that bottled water, or water provided by NJ American Water Co.?
• 'training': for whom? Line workers? Administrative staff? Senior staff? Commissioners?
• 'lot' and 'household' charges: don't assume the audience will understand, illustrate with examples (this was finally done in the process of answering a question)

2. Anticipate Possible Questions

• Of course you're going to be asked if you can peg the percentage of dumping from out-of-towners.
• Of course you're going to be asked to compare the PMUA to other utilities authorities (the PMUA has in the past made such a comparison public).
• Of course someone is liable to ask for year-to-year comparisons on any number of items.
• Be prepared.

3. Drown the Audience in Facts

• Handouts! Handouts! Handouts!
• Nothing makes an audience more suspicious than giving the sense there is information being withheld.
• Preparing handouts of a PowerPoint presentation is best practice, common sense, and an appreciated courtesy. Why not make yourself a hero?
• Put the data on the website just before the meeting and tell the audience how to access it. We are in the digital age, for Pete's sake!

4. Decide Who Is In Charge

• Put one person in charge and stick with the plan.
• Who was in charge, Ms. London or Commissioner Mitchell? It wasn't always clear.
• Control of the meeting should reside in one person, who guides everything along. When he was President of the City Council, Mr. Mitchell would make sure ALL questions were addressed THROUGH HIMSELF to whomever. This way, questioners got the attention they deserved and the proper party was directed to respond, without the meeting devolving into impromptu back-and-forths and becoming unfocused.

5. Train Commissioners to Behave Professionally

• The PMUA Commissioners have a fiduciary responsibility to the ratepayers.
• They also have the responsibility to hear out ratepayers -- no matter how angry or ill-informed -- sorting out kernels of fact from the shells of emotion in which they may be wrapped and addressing the facts only.
• It is not good governance for Commissioners to attack ratepayers or cast aspersions on their motives.
• The Commissioners should be trained in good governance techniques and held to higher standards than were in evidence last night.

Though there are many questions to be asked of the PMUA, I have always thought it has a well-focused mission that needs better tub-thumping.

Absent proof of real misdeeds, there is a reason for it to stay around.

Angry ratepayers notwithstanding.

---

• Websites:  "PMUA" | "DumpPMUA"

-- Dan Damon [follow]

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

PMUA rate-setting hearing tonight

 

The Plainfield Municipal Utilities Authority will hold a rate-setting hearing on the 'shared services' portion of it service offerings this evening at 6:00 PM at PMUA headquarters.

The courts have recently upheld the PMUA role in collecting solid waste in public areas (such as downtown curbside trash containers) and in removing illegally dumped articles wherever found throughout the city.

However, the proposed rate increase for this portion of your PMUA bill is 61%. If you have questions or statements, this is where they should be aired.

Owing to the weather, be sure to leave yourself plenty of time to ARRIVE A FEW MINUTES EARLY.

PMUA meetings are legendary for their brevity and for starting on time.

For more information, check the Authority website (here) or DumpPMUA (here), where you will find pertinent links in BLUE at the top of the home page.

---

PLAINFIELD MUNICIPAL UTILITIES AUTHORITY
RATE HEARING

Today | December 28

6:00 PM Sharp
PMUA Headquarters
127 Roosevelt Avenue
(Corner of East 2nd Street)

---

• Websites:  "PMUA" | "DumpPMUA"

-- Dan Damon [follow]

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