By Amy Batista, Special Writer
HIGHTSTOWN – The selection process regarding the newly appointed chief of police was called into question once again by a resident who still wasn’t satisfied at the council’s last meeting on May 16.
Resident Lynne Woods – who ran for a council seat in November 2015 and was defeated – noted during a public comment portion that she had responses to comments from the Police Commissioner Seth Kurs and several other members of council from the previous council going back to the May 2 meeting.
“I am not a lawyer, I am an English teacher,” said Ms. Woods. “I know the definition of words and the very definition of slander is to make false, spoken statements to cause people to have a bad opinion of somebody. I would think that a lawyer would know that.”
Ms. Woods said that she did not give out misinformation during the public comment portion of the May 2 meeting.
“All of my questions were based on ordinance 2016-3 specifically subsection 2-19.4 entitled chief of police, letter d, qualifications of the chief of police,” she said. “Selection and elevation of the individual to be appointed Chief of Police shall be based upon the following criteria.
“My one question was based on letter d number three which states in part that a physical and psychological exam are mandatory,” she said. “No one answered that at any point in the meeting, including council comments, whether Lt. (Frank) Gendron did fulfill this requirement.”
She said that number three reads as if it applies to police officers. However, if it’s under the police chief qualifications heading, she believes it applies to a chief police candidate.
“If it doesn’t, then it doesn’t make sense here,” said Ms. Woods.
She said it appears the police commissioner himself, Mr. Kurs, must have gotten confused during the council comments last meeting when he referenced subsection 2-19.8 and stated that this section applies to police officers exclusively.
“The other question was based on d number five,” said Ms. Woods. “Receipt of a satisfactory grade on any qualifying examination for the office of chief as may be selected by the borough council.”
She said that this was answered by Council President Denise Hansen and Mayor Larry Quattrone, who was a member of the review committee. “No, no qualifying examination was given,” she said. “Therefore, this appears to be a violation of this section of the ordinance.”
President Hansen said during council comments that she wanted to suggest that someone who knows exactly how the process went with the chief get back to Ms. Woods.Borough Administrator Henry Underhill released a follow up statement on May 18.
“At the May 2 and May 16 council meetings, a resident inquired about the police chief selection process,” Mr. Underhill said in a statement. “The Police Committee consulted the police ordinance before the process began and proceeded in accordance with the applicable sections.”
He said that specifically, sub-section 2-19.4d lists qualifications for a chief.
“Upon review the committee concluded that Frank Gendron met all of the requirements,” he said. “To clarify item d(5), the committee selected an oral interview as the qualifying examination. This was done due to the fact that there was only one candidate and the cost of paying for an outside test was not warranted.”
And it was also due to the fact that Mr. Gendron had been performing the duties of the chief for more than a year, he added.
Mr. Underhill said in regards to 2-19.4d (3), all of the listed items were successfully met at the time of Mr. Gendron’s original appointment.
“In accordance with to 2-19.12, the Police Committee conducted an oral interview on March 16, 2016,” he said. “Subsequent to the interview, they concluded that the candidate met the requirements for promotion to chief of police. There after, they recommended to the entire Borough Council that Frank Gendron be appointed chief.”
A public vote was taken at the May 2, 2016 Borough Council meeting, he added. “Mr. Gendron was sworn in as chief in the municipal clerk’s office on May 3, 2016.”
Mr. Underhill said that he has reviewed the procedure with the Borough Attorney Frederick Raffetto and the Borough Labor Attorney Elizabeth Garcia.
“They have opined that the ordinance was followed and that no violations of procedure have occurred,” he said.
