I take my fiduciary responsibility to the residents of Plainfield very seriously. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for some of my colleagues. So blinded are they by their unctuous loyalty to Jerry "I Run This Motherf@&ker" Green that some people would not be surprised to see actual complicity in his slanderous and libelous attacks on anyone (like me) who has the temerity to want to run for public office.
I ask the question in the post title in light of the denial by the Department of Community Affairs of the frivolous ethics complaint certain council members engineered against Mayor Mapp just days before the Democratic primary. According to these councilors, apparently, the mayor is not allowed to use the public access station to advance his progressive economic agenda for the city of Plainfield. The council president then decided to have a last-minute "Special Meeting" on Thursday 29, to pass a "Resolution voicing disapproval of with the comments of Mayor Adrian O. Mapp on Plainfield Cable Television and referring the matter to the New Jersey Local Government Ethics Board"--which I first found out about on Tuesday, May 27 at 7:46 PM.
At the meeting--predictably--Rivers, Reid, Taylor, and Greaves (who is apparently being dumped by Green next year, according to sources who have heard from her prospective replacement) voted to send their resolution to the DCA. Just as predictably, the Department of Community Affairs REJECTED their complaint, noting, in a response we received on Tuesday, July 1, that "...resolution 211-14 does not constitute a complaint under the LGEL [Local Government Ethics Law]..." because it did not meet the standards for filing a complaint--among other things, they have to name the specific provisions of the statute they allege to have been violated and provide actual evidence--which they did not.
Now, I am a member of the city council, and yet I was not made aware of the contents of Resolution 211-14 until the Thursday night meeting--who wrote the resolution? When did the council discuss what its content would consist of? I believe there was a meeting in violation of the Sunshine Law--secret meetings are illegal. Was there collusion on the part of the council to push this fake ethics charge resolution as part of Jerry Green's desire (just a few days before the primary) to discredit me and the new administration? I ask this because of a 4-page color mailer that was DELIVERED BY MAIL to Plainfield residents beginning on Friday, May 30--just ONE DAY after the May 29 "special meeting" was held by Bridget Rivers to vote on sending the resolution to the DCA.
The mailer in question references how the council voted--it is impossible for such a mailing to have been designed, printed, and mailed into homes on Friday, May 30 and Saturday, May 31, after a vote on Thursday night, May 29. It is important to find out how the outcome of such a meeting could have been known in advance, and who on the council knew what.
Further, this mailer states that I "doctored" a video that was never in my possession and states that the case is in "the courts"--an abject lie. Jerry Green is very familiar with abject lies. Given the absolute lies that Gloria Taylor, Diane Toliver, and Charles Eke allowed Jerry Green to print about me on their behalf (LIES which Gloria Taylor still has not had the decency to acknowledge or apologize for), I believe I have great cause for concern. Not once did she (or the other council members who voted in favor of the fake ethics complaint) suggest that Jerry Green be censured for his outright lies about me and about Mayor Mapp. Not once did they suggest that an ethics complaint be filed against Jerry Green for his serious ethical lapses. I guess they think Green is an ethical guy. Anyone who has seen the video of his behavior knows that he is a statewide embarrassment.
Now, I am sure the usual nay-sayers on the council as well as their supporters will think that I am trying to make political hay. I am not. I have no need to. I WON my election. My concern has to do with how this city council can behave in an ethical, transparent, and honest manner in terms of how we perform the duties we are elected to carry out on behalf of our constituents. With this ridiculous resolution (along with the reprehensible Liberty Village near-debacle, the indefensible Clinton Liquors defense, and the continued refusal to give advise and consent for new PMUA commissioners who understand their fiduciary responsibility to the ratepayers), the residents should share my concerns.