Much ado about nothing

(Edited, 6:17pm, 12-18-13)
Trentoncity councilwoman Phyllis Holly-Ward has introduced a resolution requesting that all candidates for elected office submit a copy of their credit report to the city clerk (13-678 RESOLUTION REQUESTING CANDIDATES FOR MUNICIPAL OFFICE TO FILE A CREDIT REPORT WITH THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK). Those reports would become public records and the suggestion is that a bad credit report could be one indication of a person’s suitability to hold public office.

The proposal has generated a lot of discourse. Judging from some of the commentary posted in social media, it has also generated some confusion.

RESOLUTION, NOT ORDINANCE
First off, this is a resolution. It is not an ordinance. The difference is often misunderstood. Stated simply:

• A resolution is a statement, opinion, appointment, etc. made by a municipal body.
• An ordinance is a law, enacted by the governing body, signed by the Mayor (or adopted over his/her veto), and enforced by the police and courts.

So, resolution 13-678, if passed, would merely be the “opinion”of a majority of the members of the council that candidates for municipal office be requested to submit a credit report. It is not required. It is merely a request.

CREDIT CHECK, NOT FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Some people seem to be equating the credit report disclosure with the financial disclosure form required of elected officials and other public officers. These are two different things.

The financial disclosure form requires municipal officers to declare sources of income in an effort to avoid/eliminate conflicts of interest. The financial disclosure information and the credit report have no direct relationship to one another. The former strictly looks at income and where it comes from while the latter deals with an individual’s overall financial health (NOTE: health does not necessarily equate to wealth).

The financial disclosure form has to be filed annually once someone is elected or appointed to an office.

The credit report is being looked at ahead of time as one of several gauges of a candidate’s over all fit for office. It is not meant to serve as the be all and end all, sole deciding factor. It is just one, optional, item that voters can use to help vet candidates.

WHAT IS INCLUDED IN A CREDIT REPORT?

We confess, we didn't so we researched it. According to the Federal Reserve website a credit report includes:

• Your identity. Your name, address, full or partial Social Security number, date of birth, and possibly employment information.
• Your existing credit. Information about credit that you have, such as your credit card accounts, mortgages, car loans, and student loans. It may also include the terms of your credit, how much you owe your creditors, and your history of making payments.
• Your public record. Information about any court judgments against you, any tax liens against your property, or whether you have filed for bankruptcy.
• Inquiries about you. A list of companies or persons who recently requested a copy of your report

No one has stated that a bad credit report automatically disqualifies someone from seeking municipal office. Just like a lender uses the information to determine the credit worthiness of an individual, a voter would be able to use the report as a tool to help construct a more complete picture of a candidate’s potential success as an elected official.

Another similar measure might be a candidate's ability to properly complete and submit the required reports to the NJ Election Law Enforcement Commission. The inability for a candidate to properly file on time would not necessarily disqualify them from holding office. At the same time, repeated failure to meet the filing requirments might be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not that candidate is worthy of a vote.

Many people have pointed out reasons beyond an individual’s control that would negatively impact his or her credit report. If there was an instance of identity theft or a sudden/prolonged health occurrence that caused an individual to run up debt, that individual did nothing wrong. They simply need to provide a concise explanation if and when asked. Easy.

On the other hand, an individual with poor credit and a history of liens, bankruptcies, etc that are not explained or that are due to repeated poor decision making probably indicates that person is NOT a good candidate for public office.

If you think this is all nobody’s business, that’s fine. However, it should be noted that there is a lot of information available to the public that can, and most likely will, be discovered and revealed during the course of a campaign. Candidates can provide their history willingly or wait until it is revealed some other way.

Of course, certain items on the credit report should be redacted before being made public (social security number, date of birth and the like). This is standard procedure for the release of information to the public.

A lot has been made about the fact that all of the information contained in a credit report is personal and should not have to be revealed. A candidate for office is putting himself or herself out there as someone worthy of the public’s trust. Is it wrong to ask them to be open and transparent?

Any number of websites can provide access to a person’s criminal history, record of judgments, liens and such. It is a safe bet that all candidates in the upcoming municipal election will have their records looked at and anything questionable or controversial will likely be made public.

Some have pointed out that there is a movement at both the state and federal level to ban credit checks of prospective employees by employers. The bill already approved by the state senate (S455) does make exceptions for employees whose jobs will include activities of a financial nature (not merely handling money in a retail exchange).

Obviously, the legislature understands that a credit check can be an effective tool in gauging someone’s fit for a particular job. Since elected officials make decisions regarding the municipal budget, why shouldn’t their credit check be available to use when deciding who to vote for.

People have suggested that this resolution smacks of nothing more than “silly season” politics. They have thrown up a variety of reasons why this resolution should be voted down. They have not provided any suggestions on how the voter might better measure a candidate’s worth, his or her fiscal fitness, to serve.

We’re listening.

Back to the future

Trenton's city council voted Thursday night to restore South Ward Councilman George Muschal to the position of president of the governing body.

This was accomplished after a long day of scrambling, huddling, researching, caucusing and planning because as the fiscal year draws to a close, certain members of the city council were expecting a reorganization meeting resulting in, probably, a new president being chosen along with a council vice president.

There were multiple problems with the expected scenario above.

1. The council's own rules of procedure as stated in the city code do not allow for the annual reshuffling of the deck as has been practiced by this body.
2. State law does not indicate that there would be an annual reorganization of the governing body.
3. Nothing in the rules of procedure or the state statutes creates the position of vice president.

What has happened is that this council has been operating out of compliance with its own rules. (It should be noted that the ersatz vice president position was instituted under the previous council and somehow got carried through to this one. An example of the poor performance of the the city law department, the municipal clerk's office and the governing body itself for not recognizing and correcting the deficiencies in their process).

On Tuesday night, East Ward Councilwoman Verlina Reynolds-Jackson wanted to introduce an ordinance to amend the rules of procedure to accommodate the errors in executed over the past several years. Even that move was a mistake as the council need not, indeed should not, amend its rules of procedure via ordinance because an ordinance requires the signature of the mayor. This adds a layer of oversight and inter-branch cooperation that state law does not require.

N.J.S.A. 40-69A:36 clearly gives the governing body the authority to set its own rules of procedure by resolution. The fact that Ms. Reynolds-Jackson attempted to use an ordinance to change the rules of procedure indicates a) lack of comprehension of and familiarity with her powers as a council member and b) a similar ignorance of the law on the part of whomever was advising her.

Besides going about amending the rules of procedure in a more complicated and unnecessary way, the council woman's proposed changes seem to conflict with the intent of state law.

The proposed ordinance was pulled and in its place, West Ward councilman Zachary Chester proposed a resolution amending the resolution naming Councilwoman Phyllis Holly-Ward president for the 2012-2013 year and extending her term through June 30, 2014.

This, of course, met with great resistance by Ms. Reynolds-Jackson, Councilwoman McBride and Councilman Bethea.

These three, who have generally been understood to stand with the administration of indicted Mayor Tony Mack in all matters, appeared to be fearful of having Ms.Holly-Ward continue as president. So concerned, they were adamant about continuing to violate the body's own rules of procedure just to ensure one of their own could obtain the chair of presiding officer.

Mr. Chester's resolution was tabled until Thursday's meeting so that everyone would have the opportunity to review what was being proposed (compliance with the law).

All accounts indicate that Thursday was spent hammering out a new plan...to restore Councilman Muschal to the presidency. Actually, this was a reasonable and workable solution.

Unfortunately, the internecine workings and innate mistrust amongst members of the council indicated the need to do some maneuvering to ensure that matters were conducted fairly and transparently.

This caused another flap when Councilwoman Reynolds-Jackson balked at a change in the voting order that would make her vote first rather than last. She objected that this was not the normal way they did things (the council generally votes in alphabetical order by last name, the same order they sit in on the dais). There is not set rule about this and, further, Ms. Reynolds-Jackson has expressed no problem with her colleague, Kathy McBride, sitting (out of order) at the far end of the dais just to make the point that she doesn't wish to sit next to Ms. Holly-Ward.

The double standard is obvious to all and it was generally conceded that, had she voted last, Ms. Reynolds-Jackson may very well have voted against her own proposal to restore Mr. Muschal to the presidency.

This is the painfully exemplary of how this governing body fails to work, as a whole, for the good of the city. Some members are more concerned with their perceived position and effectiveness than with doing the job they were elected to do.

With less than a year before the next election, we hope that the electorate of this city will awaken and deny the poseurs (in office or wannabes) the opportunity to mire the city in personal politics to the detriment of the greater good.

We've seen the way this body has conducted itself. We can, and must, do better.

Some people just don't get it

And apparently never will.

The depth of the ignorance of some members of the city’s governing body never ceases to astound us.

 

Last night, East Ward Councilwoman tried to introduce an ordinance amending the Rules of Procedure for City Council.

 

Her proposed amendments would have called for a reorganization of the body each year, rather than once every four years as it is now. Her ordinance also referenced the position of Vice President of Council.

 

This proposal is fraught with errors.

 

The first error is that amending the rules of procedure does not and should not require an ordinance when a resolution works just fine.

 

By utilizing an ordinance to make the changes, the governing body inadvertently drags the mayor into the mix. Ordinances, once passed, go to the mayor for signing.

 

Why would the governing body do such a thing when state law clearly gives them the authority to set their own rules by resolution? The following citation (our emphasis) is pretty clear on the matter.

 

N.J.S.A. 40:69A-36. Legislative power

 

1. The legislative power of the municipality shall be exercised by the municipal council, subject to the procedures set forth in this plan of government. Legislative powers shall be exercised by ordinance, except for the exercise of those powers that, under this plan of government or general law, do not require action by the mayor as a condition of approval for the exercise thereof, and may, therefore, be exercised by resolution, including, but not limited to:

 

a. The override of a veto of the mayor;
b. The exercise of advice and consent to actions of the mayor;
c. The conduct of a legislative inquiry or investigation;
d. The expression of disapproval of the removal by the mayor of officers or employees;
e. The removal of any municipal officer for cause;
f. The adoption of rules for the council;
g. The establishment of times and places for council meetings;
h.The establishment of the council as a committee of the whole and the delegation of any number of  its members as an ad hoc committee;
i. The declaration of emergencies respecting the passage of ordinances;
j. The election, appointment, setting of salaries and removal of officers and employees of the council, subject to any pertinent civil service requirements and any pertinent contractual obligations, and within the general limits of the municipal budget;
k. Designation of official newspapers;
l. Approval of contracts presented by the mayor;
m. Actions specified as resolutions in the “Local Budget Law” (N.J.S. 40A:4-1 et seq.) and the “Local Fiscal Affairs Law” (N.J.S. 40A:5-1 et seq.); and
n. The expression of council policies or opinions which require no formal action by the mayor

So, Ms. Reynolds-Jackson was ready to yield the body’s power to the mayor, for what purpose?

 

The East Ward councilwoman, along with her colleagues, at large councilpersons Kathy McBride and Alex Bethea have been chomping at the bit to take the gavel from the hands of current president, Phyllis Holly-Ward. They also wish to continue the non-conforming process of having a designated council vice president. This has come up before.

 

During Tuesday night’s proceedings, Councilwoman McBride asserted that there has been a council vice president “as long as {she} could remember.” If that is the case, the councilwoman must not have a very long memory.

 

The council vice president title was bestowed upon former West Ward councilwoman Annette Lartigue in the July 2006 reorganization of the body. Before that, if the designated presiding officer was not in attendance at a meeting, the body selected a president pro tem as proscribed in state statute and the existing rules of procedure. The council never formally or properly changed their rules to create the position of vice president. The current council, not knowing any better, carried on that erroneous for the first two years of this term. They never amended the rules of procedure and so current president Holly-Ward would not allow a nomination of someone to the non-existent post of vice president.

 

This has not sat well with Ms. Reynolds-Jackson who wanted, badly, to be the VP.

 

Compounding the problem was this body’s initial plan to rotate the presidency amongst its members by holding a reorganization meeting each year. This was done, we suspect, in large part to quiet the outrage expressed by Councilman Bethea and Councilwoman McBride when, in 2010, SouthWard councilman George Muschal was made the council president.

 

In a nice gesture towards his colleagues, Councilman Muschal decided he would serve for one year and then the council would reorganize and choose a new president. This opportunity to rotate the presidency was never formalized by amending the rules of procedure.

 

And they may not be empowered to make such a change.

 

In the state statutes there doesn't appear any power granted to Council to organize every year, or to limit the term of its president to one year or less than four years. There is no authority to elect a Vice President of Council. The law allows for a President and in the absence of a presence at a meeting, provides for the election of a temporary president to conduct the meeting. See subsection c below:

 

40:69A-180. Rules of procedure; quorum; ordinances and resolutions; presiding officer; compensation

 

(a) Council shall determine its own rules of procedure, not inconsistent with ordinance or statute. A majority of the whole number of members of the council shall constitute a quorum, but no ordinance shall be adopted by the council without the affirmative vote of a majority of all the members of the council.

(b) Each ordinance or resolution shall be introduced in written or typewritten form and shall be read and considered as provided by general law. The vote upon every motion, resolution or ordinance shall be taken by roll call and the yeas and nays shall be entered on the minutes. The minutes of each meeting shall be signed by the officer presiding at such meeting and by the municipal clerk.

(c) The council at its organization meeting shall elect a president of the council from among the members thereof and the president shall preside at its meetings and perform such other duties as the council may prescribe. In the absence of the president, the council shall elect a temporary presiding officer. The compensation of the mayor, council members and department heads shall be fixed by the council immediately after its organization. (our emphasis)

 

Just as current council president Holly-Ward has attempted to bring the body back into compliance by refusing to allow the designation of a vice president, Councilman Zachary Chester made a motion to amend last year’s resolution naming Holly-Ward president for one year and extending her term through June 30, 2014.

 

This action was greeted with great resistance from the axis of Bethea, McBride and Reynolds-Jackson. They sputtered and spit; claiming outrage and seeking legal advice from the city attorney (who actually seemed rather bewildered by the proceedings).

 

In the end, councilman Chester’s motion was held to be added to Thursday night’s docket. Leaving matters, once again, unresolved.

 

To be continued...

 

 

 

 

 

It's really not that hard

The phrase “you can’t make this stuff up” has, along with its more scatological sibling, been uttered a lot these past 33 months or so. A whole lot. Daily, even.

So none of us should really be surprised to learn of new feats of absurdity accomplished by what is sometimes referred to as the municipal government of the city of Trenton.

Today’s example is another great idea gone wrong at the hands of an administration clearly not up to the task of guiding, let alone governing, this city.

A recap: our current mayor is under Federal indictment and awaiting trial on corruption charges. The trial is expected to be held this coming summer. If found guilty, at sentencing he loses his seat as the mayor, creating a vacancy in the office.

Ever since the mayor was arrested last September, and maybe even after the FBI raided his home and city hall on successive days in July of 2012, people have inquired about what happens “if and when?”

To the credit of Council President Phyllis Holly-Ward and the rest of the governing body, they determined it would be a good idea to hold a special council meeting to review, in public, the process of filling a vacancy in any of the elected offices in Trenton's city government. That meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 30 at 5:30 pm in Council Chambers at City Hall. This morning, Erin Duffy had an article in the Times about this meeting. A careful read of the piece indicates a problem. And not a small one.

Down towards the end of the piece, Duffy writes:

“Holly-Ward said the interpretation given to her by the city’s law department was that if the mayor stepped down permanently, the business administrator would serve as mayor for up to 60 days and then council would choose a new interim mayor.”

The text we underlined is key here. If this is truly what Holly-Ward was told, someone is mistaken.

If you look at the city code, you will find that Chapter 2-4 refers to the Mayor. Under that chapter, in articles E. and F. there are provisions for what happens when the mayor is not able to attend to the duties and responsibilities of the office on a temporary basis (E.) and when the position is deemed vacant (F.).

From the City of Trenton Code

2-4 Mayor.
E. Acting Mayor. As provided by the Charter (Section 3-12, N.J.S.A. 40:69A-42), the Mayor shall designate the Chief of Staff, the Business Administrator, any other department head or the City Clerk to act as Mayor whenever the Mayor shall be prevented, by absence from the City, disability or other cause, from attending to the duties of the office. During such time, the person so designated by the Mayor shall possess all the rights, powers and duties of Mayor. Whenever the Mayor shall have been unable to attend to the duties of the office for a period of 60 consecutive days for any of the above-stated reasons, an acting Mayor shall be appointed by the Council who shall succeed to all the rights, powers and duties of the Mayor or the then Acting Mayor.

F. Vacancy. A vacancy in the office of Mayor shall be filled by election for the remainder of the unexpired term at the next regular municipal election occurring not less than 60 days after the occurrence of the vacancy. Council shall fill vacancies temporarily by appointment to serve until the qualification of a person so elected.

In the first instance, the mayor is able to designate an acting mayor to serve for up to 60 days in place of the elected official. This could be the Business Administrator, a Chief of Staff (if we had one), the City Clerk or any Department Director.

Situations where this might occur would be, for example, if the mayor were traveling out of state (as was the case last summer when Mayor Mack went on vacation and designated Business Administrator Sam Hutchinson as Acting Mayor. It could apply in times of illness or other medical leave, etc.

The point being, the absence is temporary.

The second section deals with the circumstances of the office being vacated by death, resignation, or some other reason that the official can not serve out the remainder of the term. This would be, in a phrase, a “permanent absence” as would be the case should the current Mayor be removed from office as a result of the pending legal case.

You will note that in section F. there is no mention of the BA stepping in for any length of time. This raises the question: “Then who becomes Mayor?”

For the answer, we must turn to state law. There are two unlinked provisions of law that deal with the matter and they are pretty clear. One is found in N.J.S.A. 40A:9 which is a string of sections of law dealing with the organization of local government. The other is in N.J.S.A. 40A:16 which focuses on the succession of office in a uniform way.

The general law:

§ 40A:9-131. Acting mayor (applicable to all communities)

In every municipality, unless otherwise provided by law, if a vacancy occurs in the office of mayor, by reason of death, resignation or otherwise, the presiding officer of the governing body shall become the acting mayor until a successor is elected and qualified.

The municipal vacancy law:

§ 40A:16-12 (Applicable to Trenton’s Non-Partisan form of Government)

Appointment to fill vacancy where incumbent was not nominee of a political party; time to fill vacancy

If the incumbent whose office has become vacant was not elected to office as the nominee of a political party, the governing body may, within 30 days of the occurrence of the vacancy, appoint a successor to fill the vacancy without regard to party.

Again, there is no mention of the ascension of the BA or anyone other than the presiding officer of the governing body to be acting mayor until a successor is named.

Further, there is a court case which determined that both of those laws are not only compatible but should be read and applied together.

DeSoto v. Smith, 383 N.J. Super. 384, 891 A.2d 1241, 2006 N.J. Super. LEXIS 54 (App. Div. 2006)

As the result of applying Section 40A:9-131, a municipal attorney was terminated by the Council President who became acting mayor and council president temporarily pursuant to N.J. Stat. Ann. § 40A:9-131. In an effort to defeat the acting mayor’s dismissal, it was argued that section 131, which allowed the council president to serve as both acting mayor and council president, violated the “separation of powers” doctrine. However the Court ruled that the doctrine of separation of powers was not generally applicable to a Faulkner Act mayor-council government, because the design of the Faulkner Act provided for checks and balances which would enable the Council by a 2/3 majority vote to nullify the acting mayor’s dismissal under N.J. Stat. Ann. § 40:69A-43(c).

The bottom line is that the succession in office law (40A:16-12) provides 30 days within which the council is to select an acting mayor pending the holding of an election (or for the unexpired balance of the term of the former mayor, depending on the time of the vacancy). Pending that, the Council President becomes acting Mayor as well as Council President.

This contradicts the interpretation that Council President Holly-Ward says she was given by the city law department.
Want further evidence?

We need only look a few miles east of Trenton’s City Hall to the Municipal Building for Hamilton Township. When then Mayor John Bencivengo resigned in the wake of the guilty verdict last November, who immediately became Acting Mayor?

Kevin Meara was the presiding officer of the governing body (township council) and thus became the Acting Mayor until the selection of Kelly Yaede to hold the title until the special election in November 2013.

Why Trenton’s law department has come up with this idea that the BA becomes the temporary Mayor is beyond us.

Hopefully, the state of NJ through the Department of Community Affairs, Division of Local Government Services will complete their "review" of the matter and advise all parties as to what is the correct information. Otherwise, we will end up with another empty but well-intended gesture of trying to do the right thing.

Read this!

Last night during the ongoing soap opera that Trenton’s city government has become, we were treated to yet another attempt to elect a council vice president.

Councilman at large Alex Bethea wanted to introduce a motion to nominate and vote on someone to hold the gavel should the president not be present at a council meeting.

Council president Phyllis Holly-Ward was having no part of it.

And for good reason.

The existing rules of procedure do not call for the election of a vice president of council.

Mr. Bethea is obviously ignorant of the rules. He complained, loudly and forcefully that he had never belonged to any organization that did not have rules providing for some one to preside over a meeting in the absence of the designated chair.

I would refer Mr. Bethea to the following section of the Rulesof Procedure as found in the Trenton city code:

RULE VI

Call to Order; President Pro Tem

The President shall take the Chair at the hour appointed for the meeting, and shall immediately call the Council to order. In the absence of the President, the Clerk or his/her designee shall call the Council to order. The Clerk shall then determine whether a quorum is present and in that event shall call for the election of a temporary President. Upon the arrival of the President, the temporary President shall forthwith relinquish the Chair upon the conclusion of the business immediately before the Council.

Voila!

Not a single mention of the existence of an elected vice president.

It should also be pointed out that the current rules of order do not call for the election of a new president each year of the for year terms. This is something that was started by this council without consulting or conforming to the current rules of order.

RULE IV The Presiding Officer

A.

Election and duties. The presiding officer of the Council shall be the President, who shall be elected at the organization meeting. The presiding officer shall preserve strict order and decorum at all regular and special meetings of the Council. He/She shall state every question coming before the Council and announce the decision of the Council on all matters coming before it. He/She shall appoint special committees of the Council. The President may vote on all questions, his/her name being called last. The President shall sign all ordinances and resolutions adopted by the Council during his/her presence. In the event of the absence of the President, such ordinances and resolutions shall be signed by the presiding officer.

Council president Holly-Ward is aware of this and has said that she wants to have a document drawn up and submitted for passage that would amend the rules to make sure the body is in compliance and vice/versa. We hope that this is accomplished sooner rather than later.

Mr. Bethea needs to read and familiarize himself with these rules and stop wasting the council’s time

She said, He said

On May 17, 2012, Councilwoman Phyllis Holly-Ward introduced a resolution stating that in an attempt to bring the governing body into compliance with the city code, they would vote on whether or not to extend the status of any acting directors who had been serving in that capacity beyond the 90 day limit.  This vote would take place at the June 7 meeting, giving the administration and/or those acting directors adequate notice to prepare to come before the council and make their case for continuing in the acting capacity.

The resolution passed, 6 – 0 with one abstention…Councilman Alex Bethea.

You may find a copy of the audio recording of the introduction, discussion and vote upon that resolution here.

Apparently, members of council and the administration have problems with short term memory. Listening to the proceedings a mere three weeks later makes one think that Councilman Bethea and Council President McBride had just flown in from some extended time away. They seemed to not recall the prior discussion and vote.

Worse, the Mayor, the Business Administrator and the acting department directors all seemed to forget (ignore is more likely) what was supposed to transpire on Thursday, June 7.

That day, Mayor Mack appeared before the city council to give a brief status update on the general state of affairs in the city and to take questions from the members. Councilwoman was somewhat surprised to find out the Mayor appeared to have no clue of what was about to take place:

Councilwoman Holly-Ward: …and then the other one was, you do know that we are having that 90 day review today?

Mayor Mack: Which one is that?

H-W: That the directors are coming before us for their review

MM: Yes. I ‘m hopeful that we will have that resolved before that time comes. When is that date?

H-W: It’s today.

MM: Today?

H-W: Today.

MM: Ok. Are the directors aware of that?

H-W: You’re business administrator, the clerk…

MM: Is that on the agenda?

H-W: Yes.

MM: Ok.

Later, after the Mayor had left and the governing body reached that point in the agenda:

Municipal Clerk Leona Baylor: The next item on our agenda is regarding 90 day review for acting directors.

Council President McBride then yielded to Councilwoman Holly-Ward. She in turn asked if the resolutions had been prepared.  The Clerk explained that she had drafts, but nothing that had yet been reviewed by the law department. Copies of the draft resolutions are passed around.

Council President McBride: And so, Mr. Denson, I just want to know the legal status as far as the resolutions are concerned.

Acting Law Director Walter Denson: Thank you Madame President. The city code section 2 – 4 it provides for  90 days for temporary appointments. It simply says those positions terminate after 90 days unless council passes a resolution to extend the time period.

H-W: For one, I wanted to say that just for us, as a body, this was done way back on May 17 which gave us more than enough time to have this together. And I know I put in a specific request which is almost two and half weeks ago for these to be individual resolutions and to state the language. So I will just say I am truly disappointed that we are at this juncture.

I guess it would take us to read them individually and not to mention we don’t even know if all the directors are here and once again the mayor obviously didn’t even know that they were coming before us to even have this issue addressed. He’s not here so once again for me it just takes it as another time where since nobody cares why should we?

Once again, McBride asks for Denson’s input. He just repeats what he has already stated, that the acting positions terminate after 90 days unless extended by council resolution.

Business Administrator Sam Hutchinson arrives and Ms. Holly-Ward addresses him:

H-W: I’m glad Mr. Hutchinson is here so we can ask Mr. Hutchinson what happened. He was here when we did it so what happened between him and the Clerk. Something didn’t connect.

Sam Hutchinson: Relative to what? Excuse me.

H-W: Why the resolutions for the acting directors weren’t presented....

SH: I was not aware of that either. My understanding was that at the last council meeting what council was asking was for an opinion from legal with respect to the Mayor’s 90 day appointment authority. That was my understanding.

H-W: No. We took a vote to have them come before us.

There was more discussion on how to proceed. Then Councilwoman Holly-Ward addressed Mr. Hutchinson again.

H-W: Mr. Hutchinson, do you want to do a presentation as to why they should stay as acting directors? Do you want to tell us what a wonderful job they are doing?

SH: What I will do a presentation on is the authority of the mayor to make appointments even in an acting capacity. I don’t think it is appropriate to discuss before council each individual unless of course you are going to “rice” them. And I certainly don’t think it is appropriate in a public session.

At this point Alex Bethea chimes in and the pitch is made for delaying, yet again, the action.

There was a lot more back and forth but a motion to reschedule the vote for a week later was defeated 5 – 2 (Bethea and McBride voting for it). McBride left and Council Vice President took the chair. All five resolutions were introduced and voted on. They passed 5 – 0 with Bethea abstaining.

You can download the full audio of the 35 minute discussion and vote on this matter as well as Mayor Mack’s surprise at finding out the 90 day review was scheduled for that day at this link.

A report from the scene

Last night (Thursday, September 1, 2011) Trenton City Council held a marathon session.  After more than two hours of public comment, the Mayor arrived and Council went into executive session to grill Mr. Mack on several issues.

The meeting resumed quite late and went until a bit after 2:00 a.m.

Here is one eyewitness account of the "highlights" of the evening.

...council did not end until 2:15!!!! 

They passed almost all of the resolutions.

The ordinance on the water department was a TOTAL fiasco. Councilman Bethea was so confused. Council President McBride claimed she didn't have enough information until Councilwoman Caldwell-Wilson reminded her that Sewer came in to talk to them several months ago and this ordinance was originally presented in February.  Councilwoman McBride still claimed it wasn't enough. 

Edmund {Johnson...of the Water Utility} got up there and freaked out on Councilman Bethea after trying to explain it over and over again. It was horrific.

Councilwoman McBride tried to vote to have the ordinance removed. Council members Phyllis Holly-Ward, George Muschal, Zachery Chester, and Marge Caldwell-Wilson denied it then they voted to pass the ordinance. That passed by the same four votes. Then like a magician Councilman Chester pulled out an already done resolution to make it effective immediately and it passed by the power of four. It was an amazing display of effective government. I was really proud of them.

Councilwomen Reynolds-Jackson and Holly-Ward got into a fight and they started cursing at each other.  Muschal and McBride yelled at them. Then Caldwell-Wilson and McBride got into a fight. It was a hot ghetto mess.

They also did not pass the preliminary budget. Rousseau explained that it will affect the application for state aid.  Councilman Chester reminded Rousseau that he had asked for information from the administration at the meeitng where the budget was introduced and Rousseau admitted that he didn't address those issues. They are going to have a special meeting before September 9 so it doesn't affect the transitional aid application.

So there you have it, folks. Our city government in action.

State of the City

We’ve been tempted to draft a lengthy dissection of Mayor Mack’s State of the City Address but hesitated. Fortunately, Dan Dodson was on it immediately and posted a thoughtful response on his blog.


Sometimes, procrastination pays off.

At tonight’s city council meeting, that pay off came. Sort of.

Resolution 11-157 was the extension of the information technology (IT) consulting contract with ADPC. This is the contract that an RFP was issued for last fall and that resulted in the controversial and faulty hiring of an unqualified vendor, Lynx Technology Partners.

ADPC, who has provided this service to the city for over 20 years, took the matter to court and prevailed.

In an order issued on March 11, Judge Feinberg determined that the RFP process would need to be rebid and that ADPC would continue under the terms of the current contract until June 30, 2011.

Tonight’s resolution was presented on the docket this way:

11-157 RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE CONTRACT WITH ASSOCIATED DATA PROCESS CONSULTANTS, INC. (ADPC), 116 VILLAGE BLVD, SUITE 200, PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY 08540 TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF TRENTON, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, DIVISION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (not to exceed $319,2000 term March 1, 2011 to June 30, 2011)

According to a report posted by Bob Chilson on his blog, when the resolution came up for a vote, it failed to pass.

Councilwoman Holly-Ward asked the City Attorney, Marc McKithen, if there was any paperwork to back up the resolution. McKithen reportedly stated he didn’t have anything.

Council voted 5-2 against the resolution. The two members who voted in favor of the resolution, Council President Muschal and Councilwoman Caldwell-Wilson, were the only two to vote against awarding the IT contract to Lynx technologies in the first place. It is pretty obvious that they are paying attention.

It is hard to say what is more disappointing in this matter…the complete lack of understanding on the part of five city council members as to what the judge ordered or McKithen’s apparent refusal to offer a proper and thorough explanation of the matter so they could vote intelligently.

At best, we have a situation where the ignorance and incompetence of a majority on our governing body is compounded by the willful contempt demonstrated by the city attorney and the rest of the Mack administration.

That, friends, is the real state of the city. It is not "well."

Hello! Is there anyone in there?

Less than two months before a recall effort can be initiated about our sitting city council members or mayor, and all is quiet?

No rumblings of a committee or committees being formed to rid City Hall of the incompetence, ignorance and arrogance that has prevented us from making any progress towards solving the fiscal problems facing us.

No outrage at the repeated failings of the administration to follow the laws of the land, let alone use common sense in managing the city day to day.

No outrage at the repeated failings of members of the governing body (city council) to grasp the most basic concepts of proper process and procedure even when it is pointed out to them in plain English.  Repeatedly.

Nearly nine months into this administration and we don't have a budget; we are on the last few months of an IT consulting contract and no IT Director; taxes are up, services are down.

Nod if you can hear me.