The Mayor, the Council and Accountability

Th public deserves to know what is happening at city hall. The WBLS debacle raises serious questions about how the taxpayers money is being spent. The following are my thoughts and positions on this subject. It is meant as an explanation of the need to balance the demand for accountability with the need for restraint. I am limited in what I say in order to protect the city from lawsuits.

Until very recently, I tried to approach the WBLS problem assertively in private but with restraint in public. I believe it is a council persons responsibility to hold the Mayor and administration accountable for questionable practices. I was in favor of investigating from the beginning. I disagreed with those council colleagues who favored investigation of legal wrongdoing only. I felt and still feel that the Council must hold itself and the Mayor accountable for frivolous, wasteful and self serving expenditures. WBLS always seemed to fit this description in my eyes. I favored hiring the attorney originally proposed for the investigation, Jackie Drakeford. She was not hired because of accusations of a conflict of interest but I wanted to proceed with her because I know from experience that she has integrity and would not allow self interest or any interests outside those of Plainfield to interfere with a thorough and fair investigation. But it was not to be. This caused a delay in beginning the investigation but thanks to four council members, we persisted in hiring an attorney to go forward. My opinions expressed above were stated in executive sessions because I felt a need to show restraint in public.

There are two considerations that led to my exercise of restraint. The Mayor, any Mayor, deserves to be respected for her position and be given the benefit of the doubt within reason. More importantly, any negative publicity for Plainfield is adding fuel to the fire. Transparency and openness must always win in the end but pulling punches is sometimes a good thing in the short term. I promised myself before taking public office that I would not speak in anger against people hurting Plainfield unless a greater good is served. I have mostly been able to restraint myself from public venting (which is different from specific criticism coupled with constructive actions for improvement). Some of my constituents see this as a weakness but an effective elected official is one who does more than state problems and fan the flames of citizens frustrations.

One example of using restraint to advantage was in my second year as a school board member. We had just gone through a bitter and divisive election and the faction I belonged to was now the majority faction. The board decided to do a national search for a Superintendent. Of course we were divided on how to proceed. Instead of fighting through the search process as previous boards had done, we decided to have our fights in private. This did not serve the public curiosity but the public good was served. We were able to attract qualified candidates, one of whom, Larry Leveritt, was hired. He was certainly more qualified than any superintendents we have had since and he did more for the Plainfield schools than anyone in recent times.

I believe that if the school board behaved as was the tradition, we would not have found qualified candidates. I fear that Mayor Robinson-Briggs' style has led Plainfield to experience a dearth of good candidates for key management positions at city hall. When Plainfield Council members are in the spotlight regarding situations like these, it's important to strike a balance between "tell it like it is" and "put the best foot forward".

So why I am writing this now, more than a year after the anti-gang forum involving WBLS? For me the assertiveness - restraint balance has changed. By refusing to cooperate with the Council's attorney and trying to avoid the subpoena, Mayor Robinson-Briggs has pushed things beyond the bounds of ethics, reason and accountability. And the subsequent media coverage has once again put Plainfield government in a bad light. There is not much of a down-side for Plainfield to tell it like it is at this point.

Ultimately the public deserves to know what is happening at city hall. There are legal reasons to temporarily withhold information from the public if it serves the public interest to do so. There are aspects of this case that have not seen the light of day yet but they will. There are times when an elected official holds back information or even opinions for reasons not understood by constituents. And those constituents can get frustrated by a perceived lack of commitment or resolve by council members. That is part of the bargain you make when you run for office. But it all comes out in the wash. Or most of it anyway. And the true test of the Plainfield City Council will be not that we found wrongdoing but what actions we will take to deal with it effectively.

New Contact Information for Me

I have a new phone number: 908-565-3741

and a new email address: cory.storch@plainfield.com

Those of you who were using the plainfield.com address have seen a delay in hearing from me because of technical problems. I could read but not respond to emails until today. It is finally fixed. So I am not using my gmail account for city business from here on.

Kensington Ave speed humps

I heard that the speed humps were removed. The installation was not done according to Plainfield's specifications and there was a dispute with the contractor about getting a fix. A new contractor has been brought in to do them according to specs. I thought they were just going to be be shaved down so this is a surprise. I will provide updates as new information becomes available.

There will be no additional cost to Plainfield as enough money was withheld from the payments to the original contractor to cover the corrective actions needed.

Plainfield Library Childrens Room Opening

Last night my first reaction, upon walking into the new children's room, was astonishment. Then delight. The library staff and the board is to be commended and special kudos goes to library director Joe DaRold. This is an example of how commitment to excellence can demonstrate how special a place Plainfield is.




The leadership at the library carried out a vision to inspire Plainfield youth. It's inspiring to adults also, for a number of reasons:

* The board took on a financial commitment to make this happen. They went beyond asking government to do for them. They made this a public - private partnership, enabling them to go beyond a plain vanilla renovation project. You have to see it for yourselves.

* The libarary board saw this as an investment in Plainfield, not merely a project. The additional cost of this room will bring us real returns in the long run. It will bring more children into the library and instill the message that learning is fun.

* It will add to the positive "buzz" about Plainfield when out of towners visit this special place. We need this big time to counteract the negative media coverage of Plainfield. (That's why we need to invest in streetscape improvement projects and historic preservation whenever possible).

* Plainfielders need more reasons to take pride in our city. We now have one more reason.

August 8 Council Meeting: Recap

The agenda fixing meeting was attended by about 30 residents. I once thought that televising the meetings would decrease attendance but that does not seem to be the case, a credit to the citizens of Plainfield, who really care about what happens in their city.

Public Safety Director Helwig gave a very brief report on the recent shootings. I was disappointed that the entire focus was on police enforcement. We really need a Mayor who can rally the community around a comprehensive approach to public safety. Police enforcement should be one aspect along with a coordinated public education, jobs training, mentoring and recreation strategy. Mayor Bloomberg recently announced a program for minority youth that combines jobs with educational commitments and mentoring. Just what Plainfield needs. I would love to see such a program in the Mayors next budget. That would have my support.

Spotshotter - my ambivalence comes from the lack of an overall public safety plan. I hope this isn't just an expensive gimmick, presented to mollify public concerns. It appears to have enough Council support for approval so time will tell. If the administration is really serious about Spotshotter, don't send the vendor to tell Council how great the program is. We need an objective analysis of data.

PMUA Taskforce - the fifth and sixth members will be added: Wilbert Gill and Marion Clemons. These are Annie McWilliams and Vera Greaves appointments, respectively. There is still one more appointment to make because the seventh nominee was a PMUA employee and was turned down by the Council. This group needs to get started and I will push for that by the end of August, seventh member or not.

The item generating the most discussion was the Lampkin House on Terrill Road. The majority of Council members felt that this is a financial responsibility the city just can't handle at this time. I have no argument with the Council majority on the fiscal concern. The $92,000 match for the county grant would be hard to justify for the city at this time. And time is short because the house is in danger of falling down.

It is a real shame because this could be more than just another proposed history house/museum. The only way to save this opportunity is for a group of citizens to convince the city that they have the staying power to find private grants that can combine with county, state and federal resources to make this project successful. The city would have to make a contribution but it would have to be a small part of the fiscal package. Could the Drake House board of trustees expand to become a larger entity to bring the Lampkin House under its wing? Is there private money available very soon to bring down the purchase/stabilization match the county requires? How much of a commitment can we get from the county for the Lampkin House? We have all heard stories of how an old property was rescued and made into an important community asset. It takes a lot of work by community volunteers. If there is anyone who is serious about discussing these questions and making a commitment to the Lampkin House, please contact me.

Council Meeting of August 8: Preview

The agenda fixing session begins at 7:30, preceded by a special meeting at 7 pm. At 7the Council takes up the second reading of the ordinance to enable the extension of acting senior city managers in their temporary positions. I am in favor of this legislation because it continues the employment of David Kochel, an experienced City Administrator, for a second 90 day period. The Mayor has had real difficulties recruiting senior managers (CFO, City Administrator, Director of Urban Development and Public Works) and this buys her more time.

The agenda fixing meeting features an update from Public Safety Director Helwig who has been asked by the Council to discuss what the police division is doing about the continuing gun violence and tragic shooting deaths in 2011.

Also of interest:

* a resolution appointing Suplee-Clooney as the city auditor for FY 2011. They do a good job and have been Plainfield's audit firm for many years. At some point, this needs to be bid competitively but with the weak position Plainfield finds itself administratively, this is not the time for it.

* we only received one bid for banking services (you may recall the Council passing a resolution requiring the Mayor to put banking out to bid so Plainfield could be assured of getting the best deal possible) and the bid will likely be rejected so we can go back for more bids. When I get more information, I will report on this in a future blog.

* a resolution seeking approval to submit a Union County grant application for $92,500 to purchase and stabilize the Lampkin House on Terrill Road. Plainfield would have to put up a match in the same amount. I believe the city should weigh the match and ongoing costs if we purchase (maintenance and lost taxes) against the future benefits. Any time a fully developed community like Plainfield has an opportunity to add open/public land, it should be seriously considered. It appears to me that not taking action will result the collapse of the third oldest house in Plainfield. Given Plainfield's weak financial position and current obligation to support the Drake House, this will be a tough decision to make.

* liens against 13 properties in need of yard clean-up by the city. Kudos to the Mayor and administration for taking action to keep our neighborhoods looking good.

* executive session begins at 6 pm and has several items of interest that may get reported out at the August 8 public session and, if not, at a later date.

Enjoy the weekend!

City Council Meeting of June 14

Another long Council meeting that started with a 6 pm executive session and ended around midnight. When the Council's confidence in the administration increases, I believe the meetings will be shorter and business will be conducted more efficiently. The most important positive action will be the appointment of a permanent city administrator who is competent and willing to work with the Council. Right now we have an acting city administrator who appears to fit that bill. Unfortunately he can only stay 90 days under the Plainfield ordinances.

Highlights of the evening:

* the road paving program - another of many discussions about the wisdom of our road paving selections. To some extent we continue on automatic pilot, guided by a scoring system that does not take into account the amount of traffic, safety issues, whether a road is a gateway to the city and other critical considerations. I used Watchung Ave to illustrate my point. The administration supports paving it from Hillside Ave to Woodland next. Compare that to the Leland to Woodland section which needs paving much more. Then check out Sterling, Cambridge and Oxford and other streets behind Cook School. You will see some of the worst streets in the city. Yet there has been no paving there at all. We have limited resources and need to make wiser decisions about the sequence of roads to be paved. I was asked to forward my recommendations to our Council Neighborhood Services committee. Once again, I will do so.

* Shotspotter - the vendor was back with a much better financing plan. And kudos to the administration for obtaining a $250,000 public saftey technology grant. Later we found out this is "almost" a done deal. Still a reason for hope. The Council had previously asked for expert input on the value of Shotspotter but that was not forthcoming at the meeting. I cannot vote for such an important initiative simply based on a vendors testimony. Once again I asked for the administration to reach out to the Prosecutors office, the State Police and other independent law enforcement entities to guide Plainfield's investment of public safety resources. Do we pay for Shotspotter (approximately $160,000/year after the grant runs out), more surveillance cameras, more police or more root cause interventions (recreation, youth career development, substance abuse treatment). Or a combination of the above.

* PMUA Citizens Taskforce - I urged Council members to appoint one representative each for action at next Mondays Council meeting.

* The Armory - the Mayor had the previous proposal brought back for discussion. Problem is we had that discussion months ago, the Council said "not worthy of action" and nothing of substance was added by the administration this time around. This is just stirring the pot. When a real proposal is made, then we should discuss it in public.

* Calendar year budgeting. Our CFO has prepared us to switch to a calendar year budget. That includes a "transition" 6 month budget from July to December. Thanks goes to Adrian Mapp, the original advocate for the change. There are advantages for Plainfield that I am sure he will cover in his blog.

We had many other items of business but too much to write about today. The Council business meeting is next Monday at 8 pm at the Municipal Court chamber.