Plainfield PAL's Youth Exposure - Mentoring Program for Middle School Students

Below is a press release regarding Plainfield PAL's Youth Exposure, a mentoring program that I have been involved with for several years. Our orientation is this Saturday at 10:00 am at Washington School. All interested parents and students are welcome to attend. The application can be found online at www.youthexposure.org.



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Nancy Jordan
Tel: (908) 753-9281
Email: youthexposure@gmail.com


LOCAL MENTORING PROGRAM SEEKS PARTICIPANTS
Orientation to be held Sept. 25, 2010 at 10 a.m. at Washington Community School

Plainfield PAL’s Youth Exposure will hold orientation for potential mentees and their parents on Saturday, September 25, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. at Washington Community School. Any Plainfield residents interested are invited to attend. The application is available at www.youthexposure.org.

This year will be filled with exciting trips and interesting speakers. Participants will travel to New York City and Washington, D.C. They will tour a college campus, go horseback riding, ice skate at Rockefeller Plaza, see a Broadway show, explore museums, volunteer locally and enjoy an overnight retreat. They will also hear guest speakers address issues ranging from financial empowerment and environmental leadership to advancements in technology and living a healthy lifestyle. We are especially pleased to announce that we will be launching the first annual “Plainfield’s Promise” Speaker Series. Our first speaker will be Film Director Alrick Brown, a Plainfield native.

Youth Exposure is able to offer this program at minimal cost to community members through Plainfield Police Athletic League (PAL). Plainfield PAL is proud to announce a grant award in the amount of $20,580.00 in support of the Youth Exposure Program for the 2010-2011 program period. Funding has been made possible in part by a sub-grant from the Police Athletic League of New Jersey Afterschool Initiatives, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Washington Community School is a key partner with Youth Exposure, offering space and support for our activities.

Youth Exposure meets every other Saturday at Washington Community School from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m., unless there is a scheduled trip. There is a one-time fee of $50.00 for participating, however scholarships are available. Transportation and admission fees for all trips are free-of-cost. Breakfast and lunch is provided. There is limited enrollment.

Plainfield PAL’s Youth Exposure is a mentoring and enrichment program for middle school students established in Plainfield, NJ. Founded in 2007, Youth Exposure’s mission is to empower middle school students, encouraging them to strive for high levels of success through pursuit of education, leadership development and community service. Mentees are youth, ages 11-14, enrolled in the Plainfield School District. Mentors are young professionals who are dedicated to their community. Youth Exposure’s vision is to create a village of supporters for these students by organizing a locally-based network of mentors and like-minded peers. Through mentoring, tutoring, exposure to new activities, and support for scholarships and job opportunities, Youth Exposure provides a wide net of guidance and avenues for personal enhancement.

###

For more information please contact Nancy Jordan of Plainfield PAL (908) 753-9281 or visit our website at http://www.youthexposure.org/.

Next Steps in Fiscal Oversight Discussion

As most know by now, the Council fell one vote short of overriding the Mayor's vetoes on 2 ordinances that were part of the F.A.I.R. (Fiscal Accountability, Integrity and Responsibility) legislation we had been discussing and carefully advancing for the past 60+ days. Needless to say, I am deeply disappointed in this outcome. I firmly believe that transparency and financial oversight are crucial to stabilizing taxes, improving the operation of the City and repairing our public image. More importantly, I know that this issue matters to residents and taxpayers who want to see Plainfield reach its full potential.

Homeowners from every neighborhood in our City constantly express their concerns about taxes and other local costs. Our taxes have been steadily increasing over the years. This is due in part to costs we can't control (pension, healthcare, etc) and in part because of poor planning and uncontrolled spending. This may not be a pretty truth, but it is the truth. I say this not to incite fear or anger, but to acknowledge the problem so that we can work towards a solution. Financial oversight will help to combat high taxes and allow us to direct funds towards addressing the real, critical needs of Plainfield such as safety and economic development.

The upcoming budget discussions will no doubt be extremely challenging. When the Council received last year's budget, we made the conscious and difficult step to cut extraneous costs in order to alleviate homeowners, saving residents nearly 1 million dollars. We may not be able to cut so much this year. We can, however, ensure that each dollar is being put to its best and highest use and that not a single dime is being wasted. Every resident deserves the right to live in a city they can afford with quality services they can enjoy. Financial oversight can get us to that utopia. Achieving this will continue to be my goal.

I will be placing "fiscal oversight" on the Council's October agenda as a discussion item. I want to revisit the issues raised regarding the ordinances and collectively assess 1) whether or not we have a majority on the Council who is comfortable with and committed to fiscal oversight and 2) what adjustments to the vetoed ordinances can be made or new ideas can be formulated that will garner the necessary support. Plainfield needs a Council that is proactive in handling its fiduciary responsibilities to residents. The solutions don't have to be my ideas or those put forth by the Administration & Finance committee. I am open and eager to hear solutions that other Councilors may have to address this important issue.

If it turns out that the Council has neither the will nor the ideas, I will drop the matter for the rest of this year and focus on other areas of importance. I have asked each Councilor to be prepared to explain their views and ideas so that we can have a meaningful, open discussion. In addition, I have asked the Administration to participate in the conversation. While I don't expect their negative view on oversight to change, we must continue to weigh their concerns in this discussion. It is only right to do so as our City Charter and Code mandate that the Mayor and Administration execute the policies set by the Council.

Financial oversight is a matter that cities, townships and boroughs across the state are grappling with, not just ours. What will set us apart from these other municipalities is the courage to take action. I urge the public to consider their stance on this matter and share their concerns and suggestions with the Council and Mayor. If you believe in financial oversight, contact your representatives and attend our meetings. Everyone's voice matters. This is not a giant that I can slay alone.

I hope that the Administration will see the benefit in being transparent and working with the Council. I expect the entire Council to come together and work towards what's best for the City. I believe that if we put Plainfield First we will not only reap immediate benefits, but will sow seeds of success for our children and grandchildren.

.

On the Mayor’s Veto of F.A.I.R. Legislation

As has been widely publicized, the Mayor vetoed the following 2 key pieces of the F.A.I.R. legislation which, if implemented, would empower the Council to have more financial oversight:

1) ORDINANCE 2010-22 requires the Administration to present all bills for the Council review prior to payment.

How will Plainfield benefit from this Ordinance?
- Many municipalities require the governing body to review bills before payment is made. In some cases these bills cannot be paid without Council approval. Due to Plainfield’s Charter, our Council does not have the authority to approve bill payment. However, we absolutely have the right to oversight and that includes the right to review bills prior to payment. If the governing body recognizes a pattern of spending that is worrisome or warrants further review, we can take the necessary steps to ensure that tax dollars are being spent wisely. A perfect example is the recent WBLS event. I doubt $20,000.00 would have been spent on a 4 hour event had the Administration been required to review the expenditures with the Council first.

What are the Mayor’s primary objections?
- The Mayor argues that additional work will be required of limited staff that is already overworked in order to present the bills in advance each month. This ordinance will force the Administration to pay bills once a month, instead of twice a month. The Mayor believes that this could cause problems with payment schedules for vendors, translating into late fees and other fines charged to the City.

Do the Mayor’s concerns outweigh the benefits? Absolutely not.
- The fact that we have limited staff is not caused by Council decisions. The Mayor has not appointed a qualified CFO and or Director of Administration & Finance. This has been an ongoing issue for years. The Council stated in resolution form that we not only support, but strongly urge the Mayor to move forward quickly in hiring the right financial leadership for the City. It may not be ideal that we are short-staffed, but we should not perpetuate one problem because we have yet to solve another.
- It is true that the Administration will need to pay bills once a month due to the Council’s once monthly meetings. If other municipalities can make it work, we can too. Furthermore, the code already requires that bills be brought before the Council at some point after being paid. So if additional work is being forced on staff it is because they will have to actually provide the documents in a timely fashion, not because there is additional work.
- The late fees, fines and other costs that the Mayor believes will be charged to the City are not a valid concern. Any bills that absolutely must be paid on a certain date (insurance, etc), are specifically stated as exceptions in the ordinance. For all other vendors, a conversation to adjust the payment schedule is all that is needed.


2) ORDINANCE 2010-23 sets the bid threshold at a lower amount to encourage greater competition between vendors.

How will Plainfield benefit from this Ordinance?
- Governor Christie recently adjusted the bid thresholds for awarding contracts by municipalities. The bid threshold for contracting units governed by the Local Public Contracts Law rose from $21,000 to $26,000 on July 1, 2010. If any municipality has an appointed Qualified Purchasing Agent (QPA) the maximum bid threshold increased from $29,000 to $36,000. Local governing bodies have the authority to adjust this threshold as necessary. This ordinance will adjust that threshold to the pay-to-play level of $17,500. Increased bid competition usually means a better product at a lower cost (which is eventually passed on to taxpayers).

What are the Mayor’s primary objections?
- The Mayor points out this ordinance is lower than the threshold recently re-established by Governor Christie and argues that a lower threshold will prevent quick action to be taken by the purchasing agent. The Mayor states that “procurement/purchasing involves so much more than finding the lowest price”, suggesting that the right quality and quantity of goods will be impossible to find with this ordinance in place. Finally, the Mayor argues that departments will suffer a delay in receiving goods and services.

Are any of the Mayor’s objections valid? Not at all.
- These concerns are not only invalid, but point to a lack of understanding of how the bid process should work. The Governor did raise the bid threshold, and as I explained above, this ordinance is in direct response to this action. In fact, the State recognized the changes that would be caused locally as a result of Gov. Christie’s action and recommended that each municipality decide what bid threshold is appropriate for them.
- Not only do I agree that quality of product should be considered when making a purchasing decision, but I believe this ordinance will achieve exactly that. If there is greater competition, vendors will provide the best product they have at the best rate they can offer. Furthermore, if the correct specifications are put in place when going out to bid, we will receive responses from only the vendors that can meet our needs. If the City’s purchasing department hasn’t figured that out yet, then perhaps this is another area the Council needs to look into.
- Finally, if there is a delay in receiving goods or services, this is due to lack of organization and planning by the Administration and Purchasing Department. Most purchases that the City makes are standard and routine. There is no excuse for not being able to anticipate the expected needs of Departments and make the appropriate purchases in a timely fashion. Again, this sounds like a management problem, not a policy problem.

___________________________________________________________________________________
This veto is the culmination of several steps:

1) The Council approved both ordinances on first reading.

2) The Council approved both ordinances on second reading. Ordinance 2010-22 passed 6-1 with only Councilman Reid dissenting and Ordinance 2010-23 passed 5-2 with Councilman Reid and Councilwoman Carter dissenting.

3) After approval by the Council, the Clerk’s office delivered the ordinances to the Mayor’s office for her signature. The Mayor usually signs the ordinances and returns them to the Clerk’s office. If she does not sign them within 10 days, the law is considered in effect anyway, unless she vetoes the legislation.

4) The Mayor had 10 days from receipt of the ordinances to veto the legislation. As required, the Mayor put her decision in writing and listed her objections to the ordinances in question.
In order to override a veto, the Council must approve a resolution declaring such. The resolution must pass by a super-majority (at least 5 positive votes of a possible 7). The Council agreed to consider the two resolutions allowing us to override the veto of both ordinances at Monday’s meeting. This by no means indicates that the required votes are in place to support the necessary resolutions.

As you can see from above, the ordinances passed on second reading with a super-majority vote although it was not required at the time. If no Councilmember changes their vote due to the Mayor’s ill-founded concerns, the Council can override the veto with no problem. If they do not pass, it is because someone who originally voted in the affirmative changed their vote.

This is the bottom line: a vote against these ordinances is a vote against transparency and fiscal oversight. No resident will be harmed if these ordinances are approved. In fact, taxpayers will benefit tremendously.

.