Revisiting Positive Change

The blogosphere has been abuzz with views on what the Council's authority is, what the Administration's authority is and whether we are using our respective power appropriately. The underlying concern is whether we are working together and the implication is that we are not. I want to address that here.

When I ran for public office in 2008 my message was Positive Change. This message was chosen intentionally. I wanted to bring hope back to Plainfield and help move us in the right direction. I wanted to be part of a collective effort to ensure a brighter future for our community. I ran because the residents of Plainfield wanted solutions instead of promises and action instead of talk. At the beginning of this year, I was honored when my peers unanimously selected me to serve as Council President. At the first meeting, I spoke about putting Plainfield First, above political careers and above political agendas.

These messages - Positive Change & Plainfield First - have as much meaning for me today as they did at the beginning, and I hope they still have meaning for you. Today I continue to serve the residents of Plainfield, guided by these original intentions. Today I continue to carry out my responsibility as Council President, always staying true to these values and ensuring that the 2010 Council focuses on key policy issues, not petty politics.

Economic Development, Financial Management and Oversight and Quality-of-Life issues are crucial to the success of this City. Are there some residents who would rather the Council accept the status quo and just leave things as they are? Perhaps. But the vast majority have supported the priorities I identified for this year such as improving fiscal oversight, focusing on economic development and investing in our roads, IT infrastructure and youth. As the legislative branch, the Council has a responsibility and a right to pass resolutions and ordinances for the betterment of the community. As the leader of the executive branch, the Mayor has a responsibility and a right to veto items she disagrees with. This process is born out of a system of checks and balances created by America's Founding Fathers and documented in the Constitution and the Federalist Papers.

Yes, the Administration and Council have disagreed on some items, specifically Financial Oversight and Management. The Mayor has made it clear that she does not believe the Council needs anymore oversight. Some Councilors agree with her and others don't. And that's to be expected because it is a controversial, but necessary, conversation. And there will be more disagreements, especially as we move through the budget process.

This topic aside, we have worked together on most things. In fact, it is under the 2010 Council that the Visioning Study (a joint effort) was approved and took place. It is under the 2010 Council that both branches of government started real discussion on how to fund our IT improvements. It is under the 2010 Council that recent downtown development is moving forward. Even more recently, the Council and Administration have resumed discussion on how to best formulate and fill citizen committees with positive results. None of this was accomplished last year. So there have been improvements. In fact, of the 396 resolutions and 36 ordinances considered this year, 376 resolutions and 26 ordinances passed. And nearly all of those were put forth by the Administration. I believe this represents a healthy balance - a push and pull from both branches of government that steadily progresses the City at a speed we collectively determine.

I take my oath as Councilwoman At-Large and as Council President very seriously and have always considered myself a public servant, never a politician. I agree that we must continue to stray away from the blame game and strive for a more harmonious relationship. But our job is not to get along. Our job is to represent the people. The question is not, "Does the Council and Administration agree?" - we do that most of the time anyway. The question is, "Are we discussing and dealing with the critical issues that are facing our community?" I believe the answer to that question is yes. And that answer must always be yes if we are to make Plainfield the kind of City we know it can be.