I have received numerous phone calls and emails from residents concerning the budget and the Shotspotter bond ordinance. I want to clarify some facts before Monday's meeting.
On The Budget:
Earlier in the week it seemed prudent to re-advertise Monday's meeting as a special meeting so that we could take action on the long-awaited budget. This was a planning and precautionary measure taken due to certain expectations. It became clear to me later in the week that the budget might not be introduced on Monday as hoped. As the public well knows, the Council has asked for a timely budget introduction all year, going as far as passing a resolution setting a budget timeline. The Administration has not adhered to this request; however, I do expect a budget introduction earlier this year than last year.
On the City’s Finances & the Spotter Bond Ordinance
At Thursday's Administration & Finance Committee meeting, the City's auditors reviewed the AFS documents with the Council committee. As expected, the City's financial situation has not improved. In fact, it has gotten worse. Based on this new information, it became clear that the Council could not responsibly move forward with Shotspotter at this time. At that committee meeting, I alerted the City Administrator, Corporation Counsel and auditors that I would urge the entire Council to table the Shotspotter bond ordinance indefinitely.
Yesterday the City Administrator informed the Council that the Administration wishes to withdraw the bond ordinance. This ordinance cannot be removed from the agenda by either the Council President or the Administration after being approved on first reading. The majority of the Council must agree not to move forward. I believe this will be the case on Monday.
On the "New Policy"
Given the information from the AFS documents, the still vacant CFO and Director of Administration & Finance positions, and the lingering concerns regarding internal financial procedures, the Council should no longer consider any Administrative item that is not essential to the day-to-day operation of the City.
As Council President, I am responsible for setting the agenda. Until the City is on a corrective course towards financial responsibility, I will not put any non-essential items on the agenda. I do not believe it is prudent for the Council to allow any additional expenses* to be made unless they are obligatory.
Furthermore, as you will recall, one of the FAIR ordinances voted down by four Councilors last month would have lowered the bid threshold to the pay-to-play level of $17,500. This would have ultimately meant that the Council would have had greater financial oversight. This month the Mayor proposed a resolution INCREASING the bid threshold which would DECREASE our financial oversight. I did not and will not place this item on the agenda for consideration. This proposal illustrates a flagrant lack of respect for the authority of the governing body and the officials elected by the public. It highlights a dangerous mindset that threatens the balance of power in this City which was created to protect the public. This makes the FAIR legislation package even more important to consider.
*word added at 7:45pm...it was inadvertantly left out
,*=
11 comments:
Odd that the email from the City Administrator came after you voiced your opinion?
I am just incredibly grateful that Plainfield has your talent at work in leading to whatever extent you are able within the structures that exist.Good leaders are in short supply. Know that you are appreciated and prayed-for. Hang in there. Keep up the good work.
Why did you vote "yes" the first time?
Why did you let it on the agenda?
Good question. The entire council, including me, recognizes the public safety problem that we have. There is no doubt in my mind that Shotspotter is effective technology that would benefit Plainfield. Unfortunately, our financial picture just isn't rosy enough to justify an expense of this level. The Administration should come back to us with a considerably lower number or with a different plan, less expensive plan, to address public safety.
Excellent! I am glad some City Council members don't follow the mayor blindly and are concerned, as we are, about the city's financial health. Thank you!
Thank you for taking a fiscally responsible stand in the face of an irresponsible administration.
Sounds like this is politically motivated. If there are so many problems, let the auditors or the state tell us so.
This is all very Glen Beck-ish. A lot of "concerns" and many non-connected "worries".
But no evidence.
Yes Shotspotter is effective but only within the limited range of its capabilities. It does exactly 3 things:
1. Determine that shots have been fired.
2. Determine where those were fired from in some small perimeter; say within 25 ft or less of where the shots were fired.
3. Call 911 with the details of its analysis within some number of seconds.
This is all it does; the rest is up to people. Whether it will reduce crime is another story.
The question is 'how much will it reduce the crime rate' and given its cost are their other more effective alternatives.
Annie a word of encouragement, continue doing what you're doing. We who are really concerned with our city recognize the great job you're doing in the face of adversity and we realize it is not easy, but necessary. Be encouraged and keep up the good work, change takes time but it will happen, just continue on the road that you've chosen to improve our city and return it to its greatness.
Ever consider running for Mayor?
We don't need more apartments!
We don't need tax abatements!
We don't need more transient housing!
We don't need more low income housing!
No one in their right mind would add more apartments.
Post a Comment