The Police Officers' Lawsuit….
As you
all know, I have made efforts to connect with residents through social
media. So you know me and I get to know
you…a little better. I often post about
positive things happening in town to let you know that the good people who work
for the municipality are doing good work.
By establishing a presence on social media, I believe it would be
hypocritical of me to now not comment on what many of you have read in the
Trentonian today. Given that it is a
pending lawsuit, there are things I cannot say or should not say, but I will
share my thoughts and opinions with you, as much as I can, because you may want to know what I think, and Chief Caloiaro deserves a fair representation of the
facts and circumstances to be made public.
First
and foremost, I appreciate and have nothing but respect for all of you that
have the wisdom and understanding to not form an opinion based upon
allegations. People tend to think that a
lawsuit somehow has merit because it exists.
It doesn’t. For the cost of $400,
ANYONE and I mean ANYONE can (and often do) file a law suit in the Superior
Court of New Jersey. The Clerk of the
Court simply stamps the complaint “FILED” with absolutely no review of the
truthfulness or accuracy of the allegations contained in it. So please do not be impressed that a civil
action exists. Nor be impressed that the
Trentonian made it a front page article.
The
Trentonian article stated that the PBA Local 119 and the Township have been in
negotiations for a new contract. That is true. During
the negotiation period the PBA fired its attorney and hired another one. This attorney, as facts will have it, is the
very same attorney that prepared and filed this lawsuit against the Township on
behalf of PBA members. The very same.
What
many in the public don’t know is that our Police Department is very different
than almost all others because we have 2 active police unions, the PBA and the
FOP. Recently, the PBA took over control
of the bargaining power on behalf of the rank and file membership but the FOP
remains the bargaining unit for the Superior officers of our Police
Department. Let that settle in for a
moment…. Think about the type of
environment this could and does create. Complaints
are frequently filed against each other that require the Mercer County
Prosecutor to investigate and handle since these complaints can’t be handled
within the department for obvious reasons.
There are more than a few currently being handled at this time.
The law
in the State of New Jersey is that it is illegal for police officers to
strike. It’s a good law for good
reasons. But the consequence to this law
is that when rank and file membership become unhappy about how things are
handled by the superior officers or, let’s say, a manager that does not offer
them the money they want in their new contract, what they always have at their discretion is to put their uniform on, wear the badge, attend roll call…and then sit in
their patrol cars all day and not do proactive traffic enforcement. Traffic enforcement that is designed NOT to
create revenue but to keep our streets safe. Safe from speeders, erratic
drivers, drunk drivers. (How many of you have taken the time out of your day to call me to complain about speeders down your
streets and never seeing a police car anywhere?) But by coming to work each day, a profession that required them to put their hand on a bible (often held by a family member) to
swear an oath to protect and to serve, they get paid….from taxpayer money.
If you
read about quotas in the newspaper. That
is accurate. The Attorney General for
the State of New Jersey issued long ago that requiring police officers to meet
quotas is illegal. It’s a good law. It makes sense. But how do you supervise or manage a police
officers that come to work each day, sit in their patrol car and do no traffic enforcement
while cars speed by, people unsafely hold cell phones, or drivers drive
drunk? If you mention the lack of
productivity and the lack of work being done, what do you think the response
is? Yes, a grievance is filed that they
are being made to stop vehicles and to meet a quota. You ask, why can’t you just suspend or fire
officers that are clearly not performing their job? Because you can’t!!! They are protected by Civil Service and their
union. Statistical evidence will make this very clear. This concerned me so much here that I contacted the NJ Attorney General's office several weeks ago to discuss what can be done about getting our officers back doing their job.
When I
took over this position in 2017, I honestly had no idea about what was really going
on at the Police Department. It didn’t
compute to me that a police officer would simply stop performing his/her duty
because they objected to Chief Mark Ubry’s style and actions as their chief at
that time. It became clear though fairly
quickly. From a non-economic
perspective, it means the streets in our community are less safe. From an economic perspective, it means that
officers are being paid and not performing.
The Judge, Court Administrator, the Deputy Court administrator, the
staff and security guards are all being paid but doing dramatically less
work. This is taxpayer money being
wasted, and it’s unacceptable.
One
thing you can do as a test to judge whether the allegations are true or not, is
to listen to the municipal council meeting recordings for February 5, 2019 and
February 19, 2019[1]. These are budget discussions. Listen to what was actually said and how it
was said. This is NOT about revenue to
get our grubby hands on. It’s about
being able to craft a responsible budget.
One that is accurate. You can’t
do that if you don’t discuss and determine and forecast what revenues will be
realized in the coming budget year. I believe these Plaintiffs, in this complaint, do a disservice to our elected
officials and our municipal judge by presenting facts in the way they have in
the complaint. Listen to the tapes…read
the complaint. Listen to the tapes….read
the complaint.
As an
example, let’s take Paragraph 20 on Page 5 where the Plaintiffs state the
following:
“During
the budget meetings of the governing body of Defendant…., the council openly
discussed how Municipal Court revenue increased and that the increase was due
to pressure put on the Police Department by Chief Caloiaro.” I listened to the tape….I didn't hear anything close to that. The fact is that
the Municipal Court revenue was dramatically down, and that presents an issue
for budgeting reasons. The shortfall in
revenue from any source in our municipal budget is a legitimate concern to
discuss “openly” in order to plan for a budget in the coming year. This is how responsible government works. Listen to the tape.
Or in
Paragraph 22 on Page 5 where the Plaintiffs allege the following:
“…During
his presentation, Judge Korngut addressed how he believed some decrease
in Municipal Court revenue in 2018 was an “aberrational year” and the future of
the Lawrence Court system was on an “upswing” back to levels they’ve seen in 2017.” I believe proper context would be that the police
officers stopped active traffic enforcement during Chief Mark Ubry’s time
because they were displeased with him and the environment he had created.
Let’s
look at Par. 71 through 81 concerning Sgt. Stein: It states,
"72. In October of 2018, Sgt. Stein and his squad
met at a Wawa to discuss patrol responsibilities for the shift. The meeting discussed materials usually covered
in a briefing. Instead of a briefing in
the department, the Officers decided to be a presence in the community while
covering their shift responsibilities.”
I will wait a couple moments while you let this sink in. Late at night, the Sgt. and his unit met a
Wawa instead of in the Police Department before their shift starts. How would you feel, as a resident taxpayer if
you saw 4-5 police officers congregating at the Wawa, probably drinking coffee
and talking? I am told that some residents even called to complain about this.
As for
the allegation that the storage unit in the back of the Police Department is
designed for creating revenue. Well that’s
true to a degree. When a police officer
stops a motor vehicle and the vehicle is not registered or the registration is
suspended, the police officer is REQUIRED to impound the vehicle. There is no discretion. This happens often times when a vehicle is
stopped for a moving violation and further investigation reveals the vehicle is
not registered or the registration is suspended. Not surprisingly, impound revenues is down
dramatically because…wait for it…..there are dramatically less motor vehicle
stops.
It is
my understanding that several years ago, Chief Mark Ubry
came up with the idea to create a small impound yard behind the police
department. This would keep the
impounded vehicles on police grounds, make an easier process for retrieval from
the owner and create revenue for the municipality instead of privately
owned storage lots. Residents demand
that municipal officials find creative ways to keep taxes down, this was an
example of that. Despite the suggestion
that the officers have discretion to impound or not impound, it is not true by
law.
I could
go on but I shouldn’t. I speak honestly
and openly to you all on all things and I cannot be silent now. Some will say I am being unprofessional doing this. I believe Chief Caloiaro is a good, honest
hard working and dedicated police chief.
I believe he is undeserving of this. If I believed the Plaintiffs, our officers, or that there was even close to the truth about these allegations, my actions would be swift on their behalf. I hate the fact that I am writing this article. I hate having been put in this position. There are many good police officers on our
force for sure. They honor their oath
and serve the community. I am grateful
to work with them. But in my opinion
there are some that have followed the lead of a few and have gone astray of
their oath, and that’s a shame. I hope that all of you do not rush to
judgment on this lawsuit. If you care
about it, take the time to become knowledgeable about it. Follow it through the court system to the end. The Township will defend this civil action
because in my opinion it is without merit. I communicate this way by choice because I think it makes for more transparency. However, I will refrain from commenting any further on
social media about this issue.
POST SCRIPT (a simple fact that I thought important to share regarding an allegation in the complaint):
One of the allegations contained in the complaint is that the Municipality has an ATM positioned in the Court and Police lobby, and that Municipality is making money on its use. I direct you to Par. 32 of the complaint where it says the following:
"32. As the police department only takes cash or money orders, often times they force motorists to use an ATM machine in the lobby of the building. The ATM machine has a limit of $200 per transaction. The ATM collects a fee per transaction which pays additional money to the Municipality. Therefore, in order for a motorist to get their vehicle back when he/she pays cash, the motorist has to use the ATM machine twice and pay two fees for the use of the ATM before they have enough cash to pay for the impound fee."
When you read that in the complaint, how many of you were outraged? How many couldn't believe that your Town would be so low to do such a thing? Well, the truth is that Lawrence Township does not make a single penny on that ATM machine. It was installed at the request of Chief Mark Ubry because he felt that it would offer more convenience to those that needed money while doing court or police business. The transaction fee ($3.00) goes to the ATM owner.....NOT TO THE TOWNSHIP. Do you know how simple it is to verify this fact? All that you would have to do is to send an email to me, the clerk or our CFO and ask, "How much revenue is received by the Township for the ATM machine at the Court and Police Building annually? We would all provide an answer: $0.00. If you wanted to be more formal, you can file an OPRA request (Open Public Records Act) which you can do online and by email to our Clerk. This was NOT done by the Plaintiffs or their attorney in this case. Yet, so many of you believed the complaint on its face. I have the emails and comments to me letting me know how awful we are. This is something to think about when you wonder about this matter.
[1] You
may contact the Municipal Clerk in advance to arrange to listen to the recordings. Please do not just walk in as preparations have to be made to accommodate you.
