NEW HANOVER: Ordinance opposed by police chief

By Geoffrey Wertime, Staff Writer
   NEW HANOVER — The Township Committee has approved a controversial ordinance restructuring the Police Department by making the public safety director the administrative head of the department.
   Unanimously approved at the committee’s Feb. 12 meeting, the ordinance amends the existing Township Code “to clarify the existing lines of authority and the identity of township officials concerning administration of the Township Department of Public Safety.”
   The role of public safety director is filled by the mayor when no one has been appointed.
   The township has been without such a director since the start of 2003, when former township official James Nash retired, several months before he pleaded guilty to misapplying federal money received by the school board when he was the board’s treasurer in 1999.
   That leaves Mayor Dennis Roohr to fill the position until the committee chooses to appoint someone to the salaried position, which Township Solicitor Anthony Drollas said Tuesday is effectively not much of a change.
   The ordinance is “meant to resolve confusion in the existing ordinances” regarding authority in the department, he said, and does not have a serious effect on how the department will run from now on.
   Furthermore, he said the law is the target of misconceptions he and the committee were happy to have the opportunity to clear up at the meeting, which “10 to 20” citizens attended.
   ”One misconception was that the result of the ordinance was to eliminate the chief of police position, which as we explained during the meeting was not the case,” he said. “That did not happen, and the ordinance does not provide for that.”
   The ordinance also allows the Township Committee to lay off employees in the department for reasons of “efficiency.” Before the amendment, such changes could be made only for economic reasons.
   ”’Efficiency’ seems like a pretty gray term to demote somebody on, depending on whose terms you’re speaking on,” said Police Chief Gary Timmons.
   Mr. Drollas said that change is only to bring the township’s code consistent with state law, and is “not at all” vague.
   Shortly before the committee meeting, Chief Timmons gathered 78 signatures on a petition asking the mayor and committee not to pass the ordinance. He said with more time, he could have garnered even more.
   ”Tell the New Hanover Committee that you don’t want a Police Department run by politicians,” the petition says. “For the safety (of) your family you want a Police Department run (by) trained law enforcement professionals!”
   In addition to what he characterized as the vagueness of the new law, Chief Timmons said he was confused why he was not apprised of the committee’s intention to consider the ordinance. It was a resident who alerted him to a public notice of its first reading, he said.
   The ordinance also “replaces me as head of the department while they claim I’m still chief,” he said.
   ”That’s true, but I’m not the head of the department. And setting up all these controls to demote almost at will concerns me, of course, for my position as well as my officers’.”
   The ordinance calls on the public safety director to set schedules and hours for the department, but Chief Timmons said “day-to-day function (of the Police Department) is clearly defined and protected by state law as the discretion of the chief,” adding he doesn’t understand how things would work otherwise.
   The state Association of Chiefs of Police is also involved. Executive Director Mitchell Sklar confirmed Tuesday the association had sent the township a letter about the law with “our analysis of the ordinance and the implications of what would occur if… logic was extended beyond what the statute permits.
   ”New Jersey state statues and multiple court decisions are very clear on what a civilian public safety director can do and what he or she may not do,” he continued, “so simply creating such a position doesn’t give enhanced authority simply because an ordinance is enacted or restructured.”
   Mr. Sklar said he was not present at the meeting and did not mean to imply New Hanover had such intentions.
   ”I don’t know the ordinance itself as currently read goes beyond state law, but it’s been our experience on occasion that municipalities have tried to extend interpretation… beyond what our courts and our legislators say are appropriate.
   ”I take the mayor at his word,” he said.
   Mr. Drollas said he saw the association’s letter the night of the meeting, and did not consider it a reason for the Township Committee to act differently.
   ”There were no legal reasons identified in the letter for the township to take a position any different from what they did,” he said.
   Mayor Roohr could not be reached for comment Tuesday.