PACKET EDITORIAL, Nov. 11
By: Packet Editorial
When consultant Carroll Buracker completed his six-month, 400-page, $100,000 study of the Princeton Township Police Department back in June, his principal conclusion was unambiguous: The department was top-heavy and overstaffed and it could, in Mr. Buracker’s professional judgment, sustain a reduction in force without compromising public safety.
We fully expected that the Township Committee would ultimately take the step, in accord with this recommendation, of reducing the size of the police force. We did not expect, however, that the discussion preceding this step would take place entirely behind closed doors, with no opportunity at all for public input. Nor did we expect that the step itself would be taken by administrative fiat, rather than by a vote of the Township Committee, without so much as a hint of advance notice.
Yet that is exactly what the township did. After offering repeated assurances that no action would be taken to implement the Buracker report without ample opportunity for public discussion and input, the township administration has gone ahead and authorized a reduction in force of four officers.
This authorization, we are now told, was an administrative decision, approved not by the Township Committee in open session but by a subcommittee that included Mayor Phyllis Marchand, Deputy Mayor Bernie Miller, Township Administrator Jim Pascale and the Police Department’s command officers. Since the subcommittee included only two of the five Township Committee members (one less than a quorum), its deliberations were not subject to the provisions of the Open Public Meetings Act.
The justification for doing this bit of public business in private and then implementing it in the form of a letter to police officers (which township officials say was never intended to be made public) is that it constitutes an administrative action rather than a policy decision. Township officials contend that any action that involves changing the terms and conditions of employment or, ultimately, the termination of employment is administrative in nature. Moreover, they say, any discussion leading up to such action is likely to be sensitive, and is therefore best kept out of the public domain.
We have no quarrel with the township’s desire to keep discussions involving the terms and conditions of employment out of public view. We would never wish to attend, or report on, a meeting at which sensitive, personal matters are discussed, or any action involving the employment of a specific individual or individuals is taken.
In our view, however, this particular situation does not fall into that category.
The township, through its subcommittee, did not make the decision to lay off any police officers. It decided to begin implementing a plan to restructure the Police Department and, as part of this restructuring, reduce the force by four officers some of whom may, if no one takes advantage of incentives to retire early, have to be laid off.
As we see it, restructuring the Police Department and reducing the size of the force by more than 10 percent is not an administrative matter. It is a public policy issue and a very important one at that. This is a conscious and deliberate decision that carries with it a host of economic, social and political implications none of which has been subject to even one minute of discussion by the residents whose lives will be affected by it. And that, in our opinion, is just plain wrong.
We take no position on whether the township police force should or shouldn’t be reduced. We’d prefer to reserve judgment until all the pros and cons are considered in a public setting with broad public input. Thereafter, we may very well find ourselves agreeing with the township administration that the police force can reasonably sustain a reduction of four officers. But we will never, ever approve of the imperious way the administration has already reached this conclusion on its own.

