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.

.