By Peter Elacqua
Staff Writer
COLTS NECK – Police Chief Kevin Sauter has filed legal action against Colts Neck in state Superior Court, Freehold, in regard to a five-day unpaid suspension he served from Aug. 29 through Sept. 2. The legal action was filed on Sept. 1.
Sauter, who has worked for the police department for 32 years and has been its chief for 23 years, is seeking the immediate dismissal of the charges the Township Committee filed against him, the reversal of his five-day suspension and back pay and benefits he lost during the suspension.
From Oct. 23-28, 2015, Sauter attended a conference that was organized by the International Association of Chiefs of Police in Chicago.
Municipal officials subsequently charged Sauter with failure to seek the proper prior written approval from the Township Committee; failure to use vacation time during his attendance at the conference; and having an on-duty police officer who was driving a police vehicle pick him up at Newark Liberty International Airport upon his return to New Jersey.
One exhibit included with Sauter’s legal action is a Colts Neck purchase order dated June 5, 2015, in the amount of $350 to cover the cost of the chief’s registration at the conference.
A handwritten notation on the purchase order signed by the municipal clerk indicates the expenditure was approved by Township Committee members James Schatzle, Michael Fitzgerald and Jarrett Engel on Sept. 9, 2015 – about six weeks before Sauter left for Chicago.
Attorney Charles Sciarra, who represents Sauter, listed five counts with which the township is being charged. The municipality is the only defendant in the legal action.
The first count asserts that officials “did not have just cause to charge Sauter and thereafter suspend him for five days, the local disciplinary hearing was inherently biased against Sauter and he seeks a de novo review (new trial) of the charges and the five-day suspension.”
The second charge asserts a violation of Sauter’s Bill of Rights and states that “Sauter by statute is given the duty to assign all training to the police force, including himself, as a means of exercising and discharging the functions, powers, and duties of the force”.
The third count asserts that the “township unduly and prejudicially delayed the imposition of disciplinary charges against Sauter.”
The fourth count asserts that Sauter’s due process rights were violated because “the Jan. 14, 2016 charges were not properly stated as it did not specify specifically what (Sauter) was being charged with.”
The fifth count asserts that Colts Neck has committed civil fraud as it relates to technical aspects of the case.
Municipal officials said they are unable to comment on the legal action because it is pending litigation. They said they will allow the matter to be resolved through the legal process.
A disciplinary hearing for Sauter was held on April 28. At Sauter’s request, the hearing was held in public at the municipal building. Retired state Superior Court Judge Robert O’Hagan was retained by municipal officials to conduct the hearing and issue an opinion on the matter.
On Aug. 15, O’Hagan issued his opinion and wrote, in part, “Perhaps as Chief Sauter contends, other Monmouth County police chiefs have been and are now being chauffeured back and forth to the airport in this fashion. However, support for such conduct stands on very shaky grounds. Drop-off and pick-up at the airport in a township vehicle can hardly be considered a benefit or perk of the chief’s job.
“Certainly there could be emergent circumstances when such preferential treatment is appropriate; for instance, when the chief’s hands-on direction is required to personally direct police response to an emergent circumstance.
“To the contrary here when arguing as to his entitlement to his regular salary while attendance at the conference, Chief Sauter offered evidence to establish he was keeping abreast of, and in control of, events at the police department using his cell phone to communicate back and forth to department personnel and others,” O’Hagan wrote.
He continued, “Whatever the situation elsewhere, in Colts Neck the practice is not open to debate since limitations on use of township cars have been set forth in clear, unambiguous language. To argue, as the chief does, ‘this is the way I have always done it,’ provides no support for his position.
“Even if the chief’s past practices were known and unchallenged and fell short of adherence to sound policy requirements, in its promulgation of the employee handbook the governing body sought at the very least to clarify allowed behavior and/or change past practices or behavior. Indeed, the handbook provides so. At the end of the day, common sense dictates government vehicles cannot be used for private purpose.
“Without question, the chief’s actions had the potential to undermine morale (line officers at the least reasonably expect the chief and other brass to obey the law) and public confidence is shaken when citizens observe violations of the law by their own police. A five-day suspension without pay is appropriate,” O’Hagan wrote.