Saturday's Courier News lead story was about the $1.66 million dollar mistake in the Plainfield 2009 proposed budget. This mistake is disturbing for two reasons. One is the potential tax increase, an additional 3% added on to the already high 9.5% proposed increase. The second problem is that our city administration's official position is that this is the fault of the audit firm that does Plainfield's municipal annual audit. Just when we all want to take responsibility for a serious problem, we get finger pointing. Who was checking the numbers? The Mayor and her team obviously did not.
Is she saying that our audit firm created the budget that the administration introduced to the City Council. Whatever she was thinking, this incorrect budget has been submitted to the Council. It is now our mess to deal with.
To make matters worse, our City Administrator stated that we will use surplus to address this mistake. That may well be but only the Council can decide that, not the Mayor or her staff. And the Council has not even been consulted, let alone requested by the Mayor, to use surplus to fix this huge budget hole.
When there are performance problems in city government, the first reaction should be to be constructive and not just critical. Some will want to close ranks around the underperforming city officials and do patch work. That may be fine for minor potholes but not when the road is in need of total reconstruction. That is where we are right now with the city's fiscal operations and budget.
This $1.66 million mistake is, unfortunately, indicative of the Mayor's budgeting process and more. I will provide details in my blog later this week to explain some of our problems and possible solutions.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Dear Anonymous
Thanks to Maria Pellum for her response to my blog on the Mayors security detail. Not only for her thoughts but for her name. Most responses have been signed "anonymous". Actually I have received some really good comments from anonymous. So I say to you mystery people: don't be afraid - give us your names. There is too much fear in Plainfield but it evaporates quickly when you stand up to it. Bullying is a shell game when you dig beneath the surface, if you know what I mean.
I am considering posting only signed comments in the future. What are your thoughts, reader?
I am considering posting only signed comments in the future. What are your thoughts, reader?
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Mayors Security Detail
Thank you Mayor. Its never too late to do the right thing. Your opponents were salivating over this issue and now you beat them to the punch. I was astonished when you arrived at the Hillside Avenue Neighborhood Watch block party last weekend with one of your officers in tow. Now I am thinking more of you as a politician.
The Star Ledger reporter had it right when he wrote that local elected officials were reluctant to criticize the security detail, even though it has cost the city hundreds of thousands of dollars. The only public challenges I am aware of are when Annie McWilliams brought it up during a debate at the library and when I asked for a risk assessment at a council meeting. What we got today was a political assessment from the Mayor in preparation for the contested June primary election.
The Star Ledger reporter had it right when he wrote that local elected officials were reluctant to criticize the security detail, even though it has cost the city hundreds of thousands of dollars. The only public challenges I am aware of are when Annie McWilliams brought it up during a debate at the library and when I asked for a risk assessment at a council meeting. What we got today was a political assessment from the Mayor in preparation for the contested June primary election.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Muhlenberg Hospital: How Politics and Help (and Hurt) - Part 1
Before dealing with the real and only important issue here, the future of Muhlenberg, I need to put to rest some local political silliness. Assemblyman Green, in his blog, uses Dottie Gutenkauf to attack me for "abstaining" from the Council vote to support the Mayors recent legal action regarding Muhlenberg Hospital. The Mayors action was to serve notice of appeal on NJ Health Commissioner Howard's decision on the closing of the hospital.
You should have called me Dottie. Or checked with any Councilperson. Then you would have known that I left the meeting (personal business) before it came up in public. Being absent is not "abstaining". I was present for part of the discussion in executive session. When the minutes and audio tape are made available, you will be able to note my saying to the Mayor that her action has given the Council more time to adequately address the Commissioners decision. You will also be able to hear that I was unhappy that the Mayor filed her notice of appeal without telling the Council, not even telling the Council's committee on Muhlenberg Hospital. We first heard this the day of that Council meeting.
So much for strength in unity. Lucky for the Mayor that the Council got past this oversight and supported the legal action. I was not ready to do so on such short notice. I needed time to understand if this was a serious step or just a political gesture. Given a few days, I decided that I would join the rest of the Council in supporting the Mayors appeal.
Notice of appeal is a step but it does not solve the long term challenge of providing medical services for Plainfielders. That is a tricky subject. When Assemblyman Green first mentioned "Plan B" to anticipate the hospital closing by bolstering services, he was attacked for giving up on Muhlenberg. Actually he was doing the right thing, but saying it in public was bad timing. Likewise, when I told Dottie Gutenkauf that, should Muhlenberg close, the financial health of neighboring hospitals such as JFK in Edison would be important to our residents health and safety.
I am very upset with the Solaris decision to close Muhlenberg. I am even more upset with our Governor, who disregarded the recommendations of his own NJ Commission on Rationalizing Health Care Resources. This blue ribbon panel recommended that essential hospitals that are financially stressed be given state support to remain open. I could ventilate about state legislators also who did not come to the rescue of our hospital (and who accept contributions from hospital systems). Maybe some other time.
Unfortunately, health care decisions in New Jersey are political, not rational. And we Dems are in charge. The heat is on, especially for those elected officials who are running in next years June primary (the Mayor, the Assemblyman, to name a few).
Citizens, you will have to carefully analyze our actions to see if we are just posturing, avoiding blame by pointing fingers at others, or if we are doing whatever we can to solve the problem of providing good health care in Plainfield. More on that in part 2.
You should have called me Dottie. Or checked with any Councilperson. Then you would have known that I left the meeting (personal business) before it came up in public. Being absent is not "abstaining". I was present for part of the discussion in executive session. When the minutes and audio tape are made available, you will be able to note my saying to the Mayor that her action has given the Council more time to adequately address the Commissioners decision. You will also be able to hear that I was unhappy that the Mayor filed her notice of appeal without telling the Council, not even telling the Council's committee on Muhlenberg Hospital. We first heard this the day of that Council meeting.
So much for strength in unity. Lucky for the Mayor that the Council got past this oversight and supported the legal action. I was not ready to do so on such short notice. I needed time to understand if this was a serious step or just a political gesture. Given a few days, I decided that I would join the rest of the Council in supporting the Mayors appeal.
Notice of appeal is a step but it does not solve the long term challenge of providing medical services for Plainfielders. That is a tricky subject. When Assemblyman Green first mentioned "Plan B" to anticipate the hospital closing by bolstering services, he was attacked for giving up on Muhlenberg. Actually he was doing the right thing, but saying it in public was bad timing. Likewise, when I told Dottie Gutenkauf that, should Muhlenberg close, the financial health of neighboring hospitals such as JFK in Edison would be important to our residents health and safety.
I am very upset with the Solaris decision to close Muhlenberg. I am even more upset with our Governor, who disregarded the recommendations of his own NJ Commission on Rationalizing Health Care Resources. This blue ribbon panel recommended that essential hospitals that are financially stressed be given state support to remain open. I could ventilate about state legislators also who did not come to the rescue of our hospital (and who accept contributions from hospital systems). Maybe some other time.
Unfortunately, health care decisions in New Jersey are political, not rational. And we Dems are in charge. The heat is on, especially for those elected officials who are running in next years June primary (the Mayor, the Assemblyman, to name a few).
Citizens, you will have to carefully analyze our actions to see if we are just posturing, avoiding blame by pointing fingers at others, or if we are doing whatever we can to solve the problem of providing good health care in Plainfield. More on that in part 2.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Pay to Play Feedback
After my blog about municipal audits and their relationship with pay to play in New Jersey, I received an interesting phone call. An influential state legislator who shall go nameless reached out to me, scolding me for "going after" Plainfield's audit firm.
It's as if he wanted to confirm my problem with the way Plainfield selects its auditor. Clearly his constituent for this phone call was the audit company and not the taxpaying citizens of Plainfield. That's the problem in a nutshell. The interests of the few come before the interests of the people.
For the record, I have absolutely no problem with the work of this audit firm. They have always answered my questions about the annual audit and budgets in a professional manner.
I do have a problem when a local political leader who does a good deal of fundraising calls to pressure a Councilman simply because that Councilman is advocating a position for limits on pay to play. I have an even bigger problem when that state legislator admits to me that he has received contributions from the very same audit firm I mentioned in my recent blog.
Let me be very clear: my problem is not with the audit firm. They are in the same boat as all New Jersey audit firms serving the public sector. My problem is with the few legislators who get the benefits of pay to play at the expense of the citizens of New Jersey.
It's as if he wanted to confirm my problem with the way Plainfield selects its auditor. Clearly his constituent for this phone call was the audit company and not the taxpaying citizens of Plainfield. That's the problem in a nutshell. The interests of the few come before the interests of the people.
For the record, I have absolutely no problem with the work of this audit firm. They have always answered my questions about the annual audit and budgets in a professional manner.
I do have a problem when a local political leader who does a good deal of fundraising calls to pressure a Councilman simply because that Councilman is advocating a position for limits on pay to play. I have an even bigger problem when that state legislator admits to me that he has received contributions from the very same audit firm I mentioned in my recent blog.
Let me be very clear: my problem is not with the audit firm. They are in the same boat as all New Jersey audit firms serving the public sector. My problem is with the few legislators who get the benefits of pay to play at the expense of the citizens of New Jersey.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Muhlenberg For Sale: clarification needed
Today's Courier News front page story is about Muhlenberg Hospital as discussed by City Council members and citizens at last nights Plainfield Council meeting. At the meeting I stated that the sale of the hospital is a private transaction but that the hospital and the Solaris system is so heavily funded/subsidized by taxpayer monies and supported by a property tax exemption that citizens have a financial interest in the sale. I asked the Council committee on Muhlenberg to take this into consideration as an issue to pursue. I stated that this could be an action item to bring to the regulators and legislators who have oversight on the hospital.
After the meeting I was asked by the Courier News reporter to explain my statement. He quoted me in the news story accurately. Unfortunately he mistakenly said I was calling for legal action by the council. I have called the Courier and asked for a follow-up correction to be made to clarify my position. News flash - after writing this blog the Courier reporter called to acknowldge the mistake and said the correction would be printed in Thursdays paper.
My position is that the Council committee on Muhlenberg seriously consider recommending back to Council the following: we request the Commissioner of Health to work with us and Solaris to make the hospital sale a more public process. This can be done in a number of ways. One would be to have an appraisal done to set a minimum bid for Muhlenberg and then do a competitive bidding process - all bids to be opened in public. There are others options such as legislative action by the New Jersey Legislature to make this sale process transparent. That will be up to the Council's Muhlenberg committee to consider.
Another point of clarification: when I say "minimum bid" I am referring to more than just the dollar amount. I mean medical services as well.
After the meeting I was asked by the Courier News reporter to explain my statement. He quoted me in the news story accurately. Unfortunately he mistakenly said I was calling for legal action by the council. I have called the Courier and asked for a follow-up correction to be made to clarify my position. News flash - after writing this blog the Courier reporter called to acknowldge the mistake and said the correction would be printed in Thursdays paper.
My position is that the Council committee on Muhlenberg seriously consider recommending back to Council the following: we request the Commissioner of Health to work with us and Solaris to make the hospital sale a more public process. This can be done in a number of ways. One would be to have an appraisal done to set a minimum bid for Muhlenberg and then do a competitive bidding process - all bids to be opened in public. There are others options such as legislative action by the New Jersey Legislature to make this sale process transparent. That will be up to the Council's Muhlenberg committee to consider.
Another point of clarification: when I say "minimum bid" I am referring to more than just the dollar amount. I mean medical services as well.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Pay to Play and audit firms
I read with interest a story in the Ledger about cosy deals between local governments and the firms that do their annual independent financial audits. It triggered some thoughts about Plainfield's audits:
1. Suplee Clooney have done Plainfields' municipal audits for many years. Are they a pay to play vendor? In order to be a successful government contractor in New Jersey, which they are, the answer is almost assuredly yes. Check the ELEC campaign contribution reports for Assemblyman Green, the state Democratic and Republican parties, etc. They should be there. Don't get me wrong. They seem to do a good job in Plainfield.
2. There are many good audit firms with municipal experience in New Jersey. I think Plainfield should go out to bid. Nothing against Suplee Clooney. Maybe when we've used a different firm for a number of years, we might want to go out to bid again and Suplee Cloney would win. And they are good enough that if pay to play was abolished, they'd do just fine. My guess is they would probably appreciate life without pay to play. But my concern is not just pay to play - see next.
3. Our city financial audit reflects on the entire municipal operation. It reflects on Mayor, Council and staff. But practically speaking the staff handle the fiscal transactions so the audit, to a large degree, is about the staff performance. And when the same audit firm is used for many years, a friendliness, even a cosiness develops between auditor and the staff. For that reason, fiscal oversight experts recommend changing audit firms every so often. I suggested this a few years ago. The response - why change when they do such good work. What do you think, reader?
4. Which brings me to my last thought. I said the audit is mostly on staff performance. It also reflects on the governing body's fiscal oversight performance. We, the City Council, vote to approve the annual audit and corrective action plans for any "findings" by the auditors. We could take it one step further. We councillors could initiate a bidding process for the audit contract and actually select the audit firm. It doesn't quite seem right that the staff recommend the firm that is mostly paid to audit them. This approach is not required by state law but it does pass the test of good fiscal oversight.
So pay to play and familiarity are obstacles to a truly independent audit. The first problem is more complex and ultimately needs a system wide solution. The second could be solved locally any given year.
1. Suplee Clooney have done Plainfields' municipal audits for many years. Are they a pay to play vendor? In order to be a successful government contractor in New Jersey, which they are, the answer is almost assuredly yes. Check the ELEC campaign contribution reports for Assemblyman Green, the state Democratic and Republican parties, etc. They should be there. Don't get me wrong. They seem to do a good job in Plainfield.
2. There are many good audit firms with municipal experience in New Jersey. I think Plainfield should go out to bid. Nothing against Suplee Clooney. Maybe when we've used a different firm for a number of years, we might want to go out to bid again and Suplee Cloney would win. And they are good enough that if pay to play was abolished, they'd do just fine. My guess is they would probably appreciate life without pay to play. But my concern is not just pay to play - see next.
3. Our city financial audit reflects on the entire municipal operation. It reflects on Mayor, Council and staff. But practically speaking the staff handle the fiscal transactions so the audit, to a large degree, is about the staff performance. And when the same audit firm is used for many years, a friendliness, even a cosiness develops between auditor and the staff. For that reason, fiscal oversight experts recommend changing audit firms every so often. I suggested this a few years ago. The response - why change when they do such good work. What do you think, reader?
4. Which brings me to my last thought. I said the audit is mostly on staff performance. It also reflects on the governing body's fiscal oversight performance. We, the City Council, vote to approve the annual audit and corrective action plans for any "findings" by the auditors. We could take it one step further. We councillors could initiate a bidding process for the audit contract and actually select the audit firm. It doesn't quite seem right that the staff recommend the firm that is mostly paid to audit them. This approach is not required by state law but it does pass the test of good fiscal oversight.
So pay to play and familiarity are obstacles to a truly independent audit. The first problem is more complex and ultimately needs a system wide solution. The second could be solved locally any given year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
