Seven Cops File Federal Lawsuit Against Twp. Officials
Seven veteran police officers have filed a civil lawsuit in federal court alleging their civil rights have been violated by Lawrence Township, Township Manager Richard Krawczun, Police Chief Daniel Posluszny and Deputy Police Chief Joseph Prettyman.
Update, May 16: When asked, at the conclusion of the May 15 township council meeting, to comment on the lawsuit, Township Manager Richard Krawczun said, “We will vigorously defend ourselves and the township.”
Original Story, May 9:
Alleging that their First Amendment-protected civil rights have been violated and that they have been punished for taking part in union activities, seven veteran Lawrence Township police officers have filed a civil lawsuit in federal court against the township manager, the chief and deputy chief of the police department, and the municipality itself.
Filed in United States District Court in Trenton on April 18 by Moorestown-based attorney Katherine Hartman, the lawsuit seeks “compensatory damages, including damages for emotional distress, loss of reputation, personal injury, back pay, front pay, consequential damages, punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and the cost of suit and any other damages the court deems equitable and just.”
Describing the seven officers as active members and officers of the labor organizations representing township police officers, the lawsuit alleges the “defendants have consistently and systematically retaliated against the plaintiffs for the exercise of their First Amendment rights, specifically, their union involvement and still more specifically, participation in their union activities. Defendants have acted individually and in concert in their official capacity to quell the exercise of plaintiffs' First Amendment rights by retaliating against plaintiffs for the exercise of said rights.”
Named as plaintiffs are:
- Sgt. Joseph Caloiaro, a member of the police department since 1993;
- Officer Marc A. Caponi, a member of the police department since 2004;
- Officer Andrew F. Lee, a member of the police department since 2006;
- Officer Andres Mejia, a member of the police department since 2006;
- Officer Hector Nieves, a member of the police department since 2001;
- Officer Steven Simon, a member of the police department since 2005; and
- Officer Scott W. Stein, a member of the police department since 1999.
Named as defendants are:
- The Township of Lawrence;
- Township Manager Richard Krawczun;
- Police Chief Daniel Posluszny; and
- Deputy Police Chief Joseph Prettyman.
The lawsuit alleges the “plaintiffs were subject to discipline, passed over for promotion, denied vacation, and generally ostracized and shunned as a result of their participation in protected First Amendment Activity” and that “the actions of the defendants were outrageous and demonstrate a pattern and practice by the defendants of interference in plaintiff's constitutional rights. The willful indifference of the defendants creates liability against the defendants for punitive damages. The defendants' acts of retaliation were performed with malicious and reckless indifference to plaintiffs' protected civil rights.”
Among the allegations contained in the lawsuit are that since Prettyman has been deputy chief, “no one who has been an officer in the union has been selected for a promotion” and that the township has spent over $160,000 in sergeant’s overtime rather than spend the $20,000 it would have cost to have promoted one of the plaintiffs to that rank.
Hartman, the attorney for the seven officers, did not return a phone call seeking comment. Krawczun, the township manager, is on vacation this week and was not available for comment.
The defendants were served with the lawsuit on April 20. By law they had 21 days to file a formal response.
On May 2, Peter F. Berk, a Newark-based attorney who is representing the defendants in the lawsuit, filed an “Application for Extension of Time to Answer, Move or Otherwise Replay” in which he asked for the response deadline to be extended.
On May 3, according to federal court documents, that request was granted and the defendants now have until May 25 to file their formal response to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit (which, together with other related documents that were obtained from the federal court, can be read in the Patch media box above) details specific actions the defendants allegedly took against each of the seven officers.
Joseph Caloiaro
Caloiaro, who serves as president of the Superior Officers Association, alleges, in part, that following a dispute he had with Prettyman over union business Prettyman refused to speak to him and later was responsible for changing Caloiaro’s shift in a way that ignored Caloiaro’s level of seniority.
“When Caloiaro spoke to the Chief and Deputy Chief about his assignment, they responded by raising the fact Caloiaro had filed two grievances in the past,” the lawsuit alleges. “In the summer of 2011, Caloiaro requested to move one block of his vacation time due to an opening created by a departmental transfer. His request was denied in spite of the fact that the denial was in direct conflict with the Chief’s Special Order.”
“The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech and association. The adverse job actions taken against Caloiaro, including but not limited to being given an undesirable assignment, being denied the ability to switch vacation, as well as the general hostility and ostracism were a direct result of the exercise of his First Amendment rights,” according to the lawsuit.
Marc A. Caponi
Caponi, an active union member who previously held the position of sergeant-at-arms, alleges he was retaliated against by the township after he was awarded almost $9,000 through a worker’s compensation claim he filed for a skin condition he contracted in 2009 while taking part in a police department-ordered activity.
“Two years later, the township sent a letter accusing Caponi of making a fraudulent claim and making scurrilous and completely false allegations about sexual behavior at a bachelor party. When confronted with the truth, the township failed to pursue their baseless allegation of fraud,” the lawsuit states.
It continues: “The adverse job actions taken against Caponi, including but not limited to being threatened with charges of fraud, being subject to scandalous and false accusations about his personal life and being subject to general hostility and ostracism were a direct result of the exercise of his First Amendment rights.”
Andrew F. Lee
Lee alleges that he was retaliated against multiple times because of his activity as president of Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 209, which is the current bargaining unit for rank-and-file officers in Lawrence Township.
The lawsuit alleges, in part:
In December of 2010, an FOP meeting took place wherein it was suggested that in lieu of other concessions suggested by the township, one cost saving measure would be to eliminate the position of Deputy Chief. Said suggestion was forwarded to the township administrator by Lee in his capacity as FOP President and in accordance with the vote of the union members.
The Deputy Chief responded by attempting to organize a campaign to force Lee's resignation as union president and stating that there will be drastic measures taken vis-a-vis the FOP. Deputy Chief Prettyman further stated, "If you think the Joe Prettyman who was captain of operations was bad, you haven't seen anything yet. I am going to be a royal ball-buster. You are now going to see who the really bad Joe Prettyman is."
After this threat was made, Prettyman began to take actions which plaintiffs believe were retaliatory and which were designed to interfere with the exercise of their First Amendment rights.
Lee objected to conduct which he believed to be harassing by contacting the township administrator who represented that he would be taking action and notifying the township council. Lee also met with the Chief of Police in mid-January of 2011. Lee filed an Unfair Labor Practice with the FOP Labor Council, objecting to the conduct of the Chief, Deputy Chief and Captain, specifically their failure to allow members to attend meetings and docking them their training time earned.
Approximately one month later, in March of 2011, Officer Lee was informed that he was the target of an internal affairs investigation about an incident, which occurred on January 26, 2011. The investigation involved assistance rendered by Officer Lee to a stranded motorist during a snowstorm….
In or about March, 2011, a survey was issued by a consulting service hired by the township. The draft results of that survey showed that the officers interviewed had generally negative views about the leadership and direction of the police department. After the survey draft was released, Lee was denied the ability to attend an FOP convention, in spite of language in the collective bargaining agreement to the contrary. On or about March 16, 2011, Lee filed a grievance about the interference with his attendance at the FOP meeting.
In September 2011 for the first time, the Deputy Chief was responsible for creating new shifts and he manipulated that process and ignored prior practice, seniority and the collective bargaining agreement and used the shift assignments to punish those who were active in the union and or had filed grievances against the department.
In October, another Internal Affairs investigation was initiated against Officer Lee because he prepared a memorandum, with the approval of his supervisor and in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement. When Officer Lee spoke to his Captain about the investigation, he responded, "you shouldn't have f*****d with the man."
Andres Mejia
Mejia is a longtime member of the Policemen’s Benevolent Association 119, which until 2009 was the bargaining unit for rank-and-file officers in the township. Since 2009 Mejia has served as treasurer for the PBA local, which still represents some officers, albeit a smaller number than those represented by the FOP lodge.
In April 2011, according to the lawsuit, Mejia filed a grievance against the township “relating to the rescission of a previously approved switch of vacation time between Mejia and Nieves. Four months after permission was granted, Nieves and Mejia received a memo rescinding the prior given permission. Mejia and Nieves filed a grievance regarding the rescission. Said grievance is still outstanding.”
In October 2011, Mejia filed another grievance against the township “relating to their denial of his request to obtain training classes.” The following month, the lawsuit alleges, Posluszny denied that grievance.
“Days after said grievance was denied Officer Mejia was served with a Preliminary Notice of Disciplinary Action alleging three incidents which occurred eight months prior. Said incidents complained that while Officer Mejia took harassment reports in each of the three incidents relating to juveniles, he expressed to the victim/witnesses that an alternative non-police way to handle the matter could be explored,” according to the lawsuit.
In January of this year, Mejia was informed that he was again the subject of Internal Affairs investigation. The lawsuit relates:
On Jan. 18, 2012, Officer Mejia was questioned about a call out two months prior. On the date in question, Officer Mejia was forced to go to his doctor, and upon his return to work, he brought in a note from that doctor in spite of the fact the collective bargaining agreement does not require a doctor's note until missing four consecutive days or using their entire allotment of 120 hours. Neither one of those situations was at issue with regard to Officer Mejia.
On or about March 8, 2012, Officer Mejia was conducting an active investigation of a motor vehicle accident wherein one of the drivers had a suspended license, an unregistered and uninsured vehicle. While he waited for a warrant check on the driver, his lieutenant contacted him. When Officer Mejia told he was act of conducting an investigation of a motor vehicle accident the Lieutenant traveled to his location, and in the middle of an open/active investigation served him with a Preliminary Notice of Disciplinary Action.
Mejia recently received another Preliminary Notice of Disciplinary Action seeking a 30-day suspension for instructing a dispatcher from a nearby town not to drive after he determined that she was under the influence of alcohol.
Officer Mejia has requested hearings in all of the outstanding disciplinary matters, but has not yet had the opportunity to exonerate himself. None of the grievances which Officer Mejia has filed have been adjudicated.
The adverse job actions taken against Mejia, including but not limited to frivolous disciplinary charges and general hostility and ostracism were a direct result of the exercise of his First Amendment rights. As a direct result of the exercise of the exercise of Mejia's First Amendment rights, he was retaliated against by defendants acting under color of state law.
Hector Nieves
Nieves was a member of PBA Local 119’s executive board from November 2007 through November 2009 during which time, according to the lawsuit, he assisted with four grievances against the police department.
In April 2010, Nieves was involved in a “disagreement” with another officer. The lawsuit alleges:
The Chief of Police filed a criminal charge of simple assault against Nieves in spite of the fact that he, the Chief, did not witness any events which justified the complaint and furthermore, in spite of the fact that [the other officer] had no desire to pursue a criminal complaint. Nieves was suspended pending disposition of the charge.
On or about October 27, 2010, after a trial, the charge against Nieves was dismissed. On the same day, was served with a Preliminary Notice of Disciplinary Action seeking a six-month suspension.
Because the department had failed to investigate any of the Nieves' complaints about [the other officer] during the incident from April, the Mercer County Prosecutor's Office became involved in an investigation of the lieutenant who handled the matter. In or about Jan. 11, 2011, Nieves was interviewed by the Prosecutor's Office. Nieves was asked a question which he believed he was not obligated to answer and the prosecutor did not press the issue.
In March 2011, Nieves filed a complaint against his lieutenant for failure to take action on his behalf on three separate incidents. In April 2011, Nieves filed a grievance regarding the rescission of his prior authorized vacation time.
Seven months after his interview but only weeks after filing grievances, the Lawrence Township Police Department instituted an Internal Affairs investigation against Nieves claiming that in the January interview with the Prosecutor's Office, he was insubordinate. In or about November, 2011, Nieves was served with a Preliminary Notices of Disciplinary Action seeking a six-day suspension for insubordination.
To date, in spite of his request for a hearing on both the Preliminary Notice of Disciplinary Action seeking a six-month suspension which was filed in October, 2010, and the Notice of Disciplinary Action seeking a six-day suspension for insubordination.
Nieves has not received a hearing on either set of charges. Similarly, the numerous outstanding grievances filed by Nieves, remained unresolved at this time.
Steven Simon
Simon, the current treasurer of FOP Lodge 209, alleges that even though he ranked No. 1 on a sergeant’s promotional exam in 2009 he was passed over in favor of a lower candidate.
“Simon spoke to the Chief who instructed him to write a memo and the Chief would coach him on how to improve himself as a candidate. Simon did as he was instructed but received no response for four months at which time he was told that the Chief had reconsidered and would not speak with Simon regarding his promotional prospects,” according to the lawsuit. “Shortly thereafter Simon received a proposed 10-day suspension. He requested a hearing in December of 2011 but has still not had an opportunity to defend himself.”
“Simon remains No. 1 on the sergeant list but rather than promote him the department has chosen to spend in excess of $160,000 in sergeant's overtime rather than the approximate $20,000 it would have cost to promote Simon,” the lawsuit continues. “The adverse job actions taken against Simon, including but not limited to being passed over for promotion, being subject to frivolous discipline and being subject to general hostility and ostracism were a direct result of the exercise of his First Amendment rights.”
Scott W. Stein
An active union member who served as vice president of PBA Local 119 in 2006, Stein alleges that he too was passed over for promotion to sergeant, even though he scored No. 2 in the 2009 exam.
“While Stein had enjoyed a higher ranking based on the sergeant's test, and a far superior disciplinary history, Stein has been vice president of the PBA, a member of the mentor program, and [the officer who received the promotion] is not an active member of the union,” the lawsuit alleges.
“Since Prettyman has been appointed to that position of Deputy Chief, no one who has been an officer in the union has been selected for a promotion… The adverse job actions taken against Stein, including but not limited to being passed over for promotion, and general hostility and ostracism were a direct result of the exercise of his First Amendment rights,” the lawsuit states.
kid me
5:26 am on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
This is outrageous. If SEVEN officets are suing there is obviously a problem. Would someone please get rid of the chief and deputy chief beforw thia costs the taxpayets more money in legal fees. Enough with the friendships and promises. This could cost the township $100,000's of dollars. Get rid of the chief and deputy and ask the SEVEN cops to drop the suit for the sake of the taxpayeys. It is ridiculous that the town council has allowed this police department to get so out of control.
T. Hughes
4:52 pm on Monday, July 16, 2012
I say shut up and do your job and stop comnplaining. Everybody claims their rights are violated in this country. When I was in the army I was stationed all over the world and I saw some pretty bad stuff. I wish these cops could live in Syria, Then we will see if their rights in the US are "Violated,"I bet you by minute one they would be crying like little girls and would want to come back to the states. Just because alot of people say something does not mean it is true. Hundreds of people supposviely saw the white van during the DC. Sniper case but did that mean it was true, of course not they were in a different vechicle.
Landon Donovan
6:13 am on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Everyone has riights and those named in the lawsuit have clearly had thier rights violated. When your rights are violated the only course of action is court. Could someone please explain why some police officers are union and some are not? I'm not sure everyone understands. I applaud these officers for taking the steps to find justice.
Stinki Garbaage
6:54 am on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
kid me, you are right that this is absolutely outrageous. It points to systemic mis-management in the police department, which is not surprising considering political leadership in this town.
We should follow this very closely. Of course, we need to wait for all the facts, but IF these allegations are true and Lawrence TWP, suffers financially becasue of it, then we should bring suit against the chief and deputy (and perhaps other leadership if the behavior was encouraged or ignored) to fire them and strip them of the benefits that we're expected to pay out to them.
And yes, we should find out how much money we're paying to defend this lawsuit.
Patch, thank you for reporting this. Where are the real papers in all this?
Lville Rob
9:03 am on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
It's page one in the Trentonian.
Missy Webb
8:50 am on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Seems Like Lawrence Township Has some Major Problems And It seems like it the same NAMES THAT KEEP COMING OUT Township Manager Richard S. Krawczun, Police Chief Daniel Posluszny, and Deputy Police Chief Joseph Prettyman. Lawrence has lawsuits from the Police Officers, Mr. Simon and The township has no money . what is that all about? We do need an investigation on these Departments.
grill master
8:54 am on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Nice...great news! This is exactly the type of police department and township administration I want to pay for. Glad to see my tax dollars hard at work.
Chief Wahoo
10:23 am on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Protect and serve themselves !!!....... Who do these overpaid ticket writers think they are really suing ........ The taxpayers !!!!!!
Only answer is a property tax revolt and kil the machine
David Smith
5:40 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Actually they may be happy with the replacement of the chief and deputy chief.
Victor
10:53 am on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
The Police Department needs a formal review by an outside state or federl district attorney. We need to revise the labor contract to ensure it blances fair treatent with common sense appraoch to expenses eliminating manadatory overtime clauses etc. This police department has been a "family affair" for too many years resulting in abuse of power. It is time to listen and act . I hope the Town Manager and Council have their wake up call. And thank you PAtch and Michael Ratcliffe specifically who wrote this at 4 am . Finally we are getting the inside story which the local newspapers have avoided for years .
Niffer
3:20 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Within the last few years, didn't we pay $30,000 to a firm that formally reviewed the police department and concluded that it was running efficiently and doing just fine?
Commoncents
5:10 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
@Niffer the report stated in a polite and politically correct manner that the department was staffed with the bare minimums. No excess of manpower, no specialized bureaus when compared to similar departments, no frills, no bells and whistles, just a simple reactive response police department that is over burdened with call volume that directly effected the effiency of the dept. The report also clearly stated that Lawrence officers have little to no "proactive" time. Which means the officers are too busy handling calls and have no time to prevent crime, but rather only respond and handle crimes already committed.
Also part of the report was an employee response. (The one that is mentioned in the law suit) Does anyone else think its suspicious that the Twp and department heads fought to keep the survey a secret? What could possibly be there to hide......?
Damnskippy
11:24 am on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
The higher brass need to be replaced. I agree with victor a formal outside review is much needed. I've heard the stories and this has been a long running problem, a clear abuse of power that is only going to in the end hurt the taxpayers.
Damnskippy
11:30 am on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Anyone know how many signatures we need to have to force the higher brass out?
tired of it
5:48 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
go right to the council 20,000 people at once!!!!!!!
Intheknow
11:37 am on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
just the beginning.
Intheknow
11:46 am on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
This abuse of power has been going on for years and is getting worse and worse.
LTPD has more internal investigations than the rest of Mercer County combined.
They all start internally with the Deputy Chief other than citizen complaints like most departments. He should see a shrink ! He punishes others for his shortcommings !
rachel johnson
5:02 pm on Thursday, May 10, 2012
Just like his uncle John Prettyman,it all started with him he made sure he was in before he retired LOOK OUT FOR FAMILY
John
11:59 am on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
The appropriate first step would be for the township to contact the prosecutor's office and have them take over the police department temporarily as they have done in other departments involving serious allegations of their chief executives. If true, these allegations are very serious and involves civil rights violations. Bringing in the county to oversee the police department would protect the township and those listed as defendants from any further legal action. If an incident should occur requiring justified discipline to one of the officers suing, the department would not be able to impartially investigate or discipline. For that matter, they really can no longer effectively manage the rest of the department during this time. This should not be seen as punishment but as the only fair thing to do. This is the only way to shield all those involved.
Sanriobaby
2:56 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Agreed! This sounds like the best and most reasonable course of action to take.
Damnskippy
12:14 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Well said john
Missy Webb
12:18 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
John I agree with you 100%. THE PROSECUTOR"S OFFICE would be a great step in the right direction. It's not the department it's who is in Charge of the department.
Chief Wahoo
1:03 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
so is EVERY overpaid ticket writer supposed to get promoted and sue if they do not ???
David Smith
5:37 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
What is your explanation of the number 1 and 2 candidate not getting promoted? Moreover, don't talk trash about a job you haven't done or more likely can't do.
JerseyGirl4
12:10 pm on Friday, May 11, 2012
First of all, "chief," do you know what police do? If not, let me give you a brief description: they enforce the law. They help the community fight criminals by making arrests, assisting with emergency situations, investigating crimes, helping prosecute criminals by collecting and securing evidence, testifying in court, and writing detailed reports. And that's just a small sampling. How idiotic and uninformed to refer to them as ticket writers. Those who protect lives are not overpaid, and I’m sure you wouldn’t call them “overpaid ticket writers” if they saved your life one day. They're far underpaid and under appreciated. You thinking that they're suing simply because they weren't promoted shows that you don’t know the facts. If they're not going to promote at least the No. 1-ranking officer up to sargeant - but rather a lower candidate - what's the purpose of the sargeant's exam to begin with? Explain your thought process on that. Before mouthing off next time, why don't you first arm yourself with the facts to avoid sounding, shall I say, less than intelligent?
Nowwhat
1:28 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Layoff of eight officers??? howabout these guys leave and save the township. Cant wait to see this legal bill.
David Smith
5:43 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
How about we get rid of the two at the top and keep all our officers?
kid me
1:41 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
This is absolutely absurd. How can dan and joe look at themselves in the mirror? Save face and retire. Not only will your retirements help rectify this suit but it will save younger officers jobs. Do the right thing.
Damnskippy
2:06 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Nowwhat your an idiot. What would the layoff of the officers in the suit do. The problem people would still be there.
Nowwhat
3:01 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
@Damnskippyy not the layoffs of the cops in the suit the retirement of the ones making problems. The township is going to layoff eight cops so why not trim the top who is causing the mess. Save on legal money that will be on the taxpayer. If the township fights this its going to cost millions by the time it goes to court.
enoughalready
4:57 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Get rid of them all.
David Smith
5:29 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Don't our men and women on the police force have a hard enough job to do these days? The last thing they need is a hostile work environment from the higher ups who are supposed to have their backs. Hello township council fire the chiefs and get some real administrative oversight in the police force. What excuse can the present chief and deputy chief give us that would explain these obvious abuses of power? It does not take over six months to deal with a grievance or give an officer a hearing. This is typical union busting tactics and it appears it has been conducted with clear knowledge of most of the people running the township.
trustandtrust
5:33 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
How could the chief and deputy chief not be asked to retire? How can the township justify the liability of keepibg these two inefficient vindictive sounding people. Its time for them.to retire IMMEDIATELY.
Summer White
6:30 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
My guess is there are others subjected to this treatment who are afraid to speak up for fear of retaliation. The Prosecutor's Office has known about the situation for a while but for whatever reason did not act on it.
JOE IGNAS
9:17 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Good old boys with guns. PROMOTIONS only go to guys who's pop was a cop in this town.
John
10:52 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Look, "Good Old Boys" pioneered law enforcement beginning in the old west. Being a good old boy with a gun doesn't make an officer bad. Promotions are supposed to be based on merit. In New Jersey, promotions are based on tests and qualifications. Just because an officer scores well on a test does not mean they are automatically the best candidate for the job. That being said, the officers who score within promotional standards who are better qualified, not politically connected should be the ones promoted. Better qualified most definitely must include those who have received very little discipline and those who have proven they can lead themselves before being able to lead others. If an officer cannot stay out of trouble or at least refrain from committing acts requiring suspension then he or she has no business being a police supervisor. Trained, qualified and well behaved good old boys should be rewarded. A good old boy is one who grew up in or close to the town in which they serve and one who can relate to and respect the local residents. Of equal importance is only those who have shown great responsibility for their behavior on and off duty an those who have shown outstanding leadership qualities. Not those who can merely supervise. Anyone can supervise but only a few can truly lead.
Shannon Penn
11:59 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Did anyone realize the Chief and Deputy Chief received new take home unmarked cars this year?
Does anyone realize the Deputy Chief LIVES OUT OF COUNTY?
Does anyone know the Deputy Chief uses his Township issued vehicle to commute from home to work and then back again?
Does anyone know the last time the Deputy Chief was called back in for an emergency that would necessitate the need for a take home car?
Does anyone know the amount of gas used by the Deputy Chief to commute from home to work and then back home again? (approx 50 miles a day)
Does anyone realize the Deputy Chief makes $151,544 a year?
Must be nice to not have to pay for gas, and get a new car to travel back and forth in.
Blueline
9:24 am on Thursday, May 10, 2012
Shannon, you forgot the fact that he routinely takes the car to work an overtime side job that does not necessitate a police car thus the twp does not collect additional car fees for its use. This same side job that is worked by regular patrol officers warrants them to utilize their own personal vehicle. I'm sure its nice and warm in his car in the winter and extra cool in the summer - at the taxpayers expense.
Lawrence Larryville
2:15 am on Thursday, May 10, 2012
Should it really surprise anyone that the police are led by two goofballs? Under the leadership of Chief Dan, the department has a reputation as "bungling" among greater Mercer County law enforcement units, and that's not something new. He's gotta bear some responsibility for the actions of his deputy, who sounds like a bit of a psychopath. Can anyone really look to Chief Dan as a township leader? The guy tries to hide in plain sight! Best to have these guys retire and move on with more efficient leadership.
John
2:54 am on Thursday, May 10, 2012
It sounds like the officers of the department have no confidence in the ability of the Chief and Deputy Chief to provide sound and effective leadership, this also seems to be true for some of the residence of our community. In my opinion, if those that are lead have no confidence in those that are charged with the duty and responsibilty to lead them, they should and must be relieved of duty. All organizations require sound and effective leadership to be effective. I believe that the determination of wether or not there is sound and effective leadership is found in those that are lead. I would ask our town council to evaluate the morale and espirit de corp of the department and more importantly. that they understand that if the officer's of the department have no confidence in the Chief and Deputy Chief, the effectiveness and ability of the department to meet and sustain what I consider their primary mission, to protect and serve the community of Lawreceville, cannot and will not be accomplished.
Respectfully,
JFA
Blueline
9:28 am on Thursday, May 10, 2012
John, the twp. DID evaluate the morale and espirit de corp of the dept. It was done in the twp survey completed last year. This same survey as part of the consultant study had been effectively buried and called non-existant by the twp manager and his legal staff
Michael Ratcliffe
9:58 am on Thursday, May 10, 2012
FYI: An Open Public Records Act request for the employee survey conducted as part of the Matrix Consulting Group's study of the police department was filed last year by Patch, but the request was denied by the township on the grounds that the survey involved personnel matters that were not public.
Bob Bostock
7:58 pm on Thursday, May 10, 2012
Michael - you can appeal a denial of records. This incumbent, starting at page 26, discusses the two avenues of appeal: http://www.nj.gov/grc/public/docs/Citizen's%20Guide%20to%20OPRA%20(July%202011).pdf
tax waste
6:08 am on Thursday, May 10, 2012
@shannon the issues you raise are only the tip of the iceberg with the deputy chief. His arrogant and vindictive disposition compliments his apparent abuse of authority.
@larryville "goofballs" is way to gentle of a word.
The inept leadership of the biggest expenditure to the township has been allowed for to long. Council and Krawcun have known about the ongoing issues and refused to make a change. This lawsuit is going to get very interesting. Lets see if the deputy chief can munipulate his way out of this.
John
10:40 am on Thursday, May 10, 2012
Blueline thank you..I'm not a well educated or bright person so I can only make a SWAG (Stupid Wild Ass Guess) that the report found much of what I have read from people like you and others. This also brings me to the conclusion that the values, principles, and traits of leadership, that must be present to provide effective leadership are missing from the so called leaders of our community. I once worked for an organization that would relieve the entire chain of command when it was determined that those that they were supposedly leading showed signs that they had lost their confidence in their leaders. But, as I continue to adjust to my new enviorment, I'm learning that the people that should do the relieving (firing), the Senior Leadership of our community, are just as bad if not worse than the people that report to them. I srongly believe that the Chief and Deputy Chief should be relieved of command, but it appears that some, if not all of the council members should be relieved as well. They have taken the "easy wrong over the hard right". I sure don't understand why corrective action has not taken place. I'm going to continue to read the comments of the people like you, that I think can provide me some insight that will help gain an understanding of why the Council members aren't taking action. I have to wonder..do they understand as leaders, that they have two (2) options, they can either do what is right, or do the right thing.
Respectfully,
JFA
Missy Webb
10:44 am on Thursday, May 10, 2012
Council and the Mayor Need to step up to their job and start working for the people who pay for these clowns who are in charge. We the taxpayers need to Stand up to the Township Council and Mayor. It a 3 ring circus
John
11:00 am on Thursday, May 10, 2012
Mr. Ratcliffe,
Sir, Is there no other recourse that could be taken to secure a copy of the survey?
Respectfully,
JFA
c83910
3:45 pm on Thursday, May 10, 2012
I pray that the township did not try and hide or cover up the management study like has been said here. I also hope that the officers facing discipline are not waiting months for hearings. If half of the allegations in this case are true then the township should start writing checks and save the legal battle and added legal fees. This really is despicable on the the chief, deputy and township
Lville Rob
4:22 pm on Thursday, May 10, 2012
Here's a link to the full report: http://www.lawrencetwp.com/documents/manager/Matrix%20Police%20Staffing%20Study%202011.pdf
Michael Ratcliffe
4:54 pm on Thursday, May 10, 2012
The employee survey was not included as part of the report that was released to the public back in July (http://lawrenceville.patch.com/articles/lawrence-township-police-study-released-to-public) and posted on the township website. From what I've been told from sources inside the police department, all officers in the department were asked to anonymously fill out the survey, which asked questions about the state of the department. This survey is what the township did not release when we filed our OPRA request. Again, they said it involved personnel matters and was not public.
Bob Bostock
5:24 pm on Thursday, May 10, 2012
The results of the survey were not included in the report. The report the council received is what is posted on the web.
enough
6:51 pm on Thursday, May 10, 2012
Bob bostock save your political bull crap for aome other topoc. That survey was part of the study paid for by tax payer money. The ONLY reason its being hidden is because it was unfavorable to the township and exposed the truth. If it was filled with positive feedback from the employees that survey would be plastered all over the final report. Save you bulls##t for something else and address the damn problem for once rather then make excuses. No one is going to stand for the lies another day. Handle the damn problem or the potential for the taxpayers to bare the financial brunt of this increases. Save us the headache and handle the problem
Bob Bostock
7:52 pm on Thursday, May 10, 2012
What political "bullcrap?" I made a simple statement of fact.
Under the council-manager form of government under which Lawrence Township operates, the township manager is responsible for running the town, which includes the hiring and supervision of township employees. As essentially a legislative body, the council has no supervisory authority over township employees. In fact, council members are prohibited from involvement in individual personnel matters.
The survey results were not given to the council or released to the public, on the advice of the township's labor counsel, because they are a personnel matter. Under the Open Public Records Act, personnel matters are not subject to disclosure. In fact, there are 24 separate exemptions from disclosure under the state's OPRA law. See all 24 exemptions here: www.nj.gov/grc/public/exempt/
I've read lots of assumptions about the results of the survey, but unless one has seen the results,, that's all they are: speculative assumptions.
David Smith
7:02 pm on Thursday, May 10, 2012
So despite the fact that the police officers filled out these forms the police have refused to allow us public access to these records. Does the mayor and the council know that it is illegal to withhold these records from the public? We paid for the survey we have a right to see it. Why exactly haven't we heard from anyone on the council about this law suit? I personally would like to know why the township manager and the township itself has been named in the suit. I can only deduce that these complaints have been sent up the chain of command and no one from the council has taken any action. Well council don't you think it's time to speak out to the community?
G I Jane
8:43 pm on Thursday, May 10, 2012
David, the township has refused to release the survey results because of how damaging of a document it is. It does not paint a favorable picture of the administration of the police department but rather a scathing criticism of the administration and how they operate the police department is what I have been told by several police officers in Lawrence that I know. If this document surfaces, it will only serve to validate the lawsuit the officers have brought against the township and further damage the credibility of the council, police department, and township manager.
WALLY
9:03 pm on Thursday, May 10, 2012
SORRY TO SEE ALL THIS DIRT BEING AIRED IN THE PRESS
Shannon Penn
11:32 pm on Thursday, May 10, 2012
Bob Bostock wrote on 7:52 pm on Thursday, May 10, 2012:
"The survey results were not given to the council or released to the public, on the advice of the township's labor counsel, because they are a personnel matter."
If the survey was anonymous, how can it be a personnel matter? Did it mention specific names, what else did it have to say? Oh wait, its been suppressed, no one knows what the survey said, but the three defendants in this case.
Any lawyer will try and get as much damning evidence suppressed before it gets aired to the jury (residents/taxpayers).
Blueline wrote 9:24 am on Thursday, May 10, 2012:
"Shannon, you forgot the fact that he routinely takes the car to work an overtime side job that does not necessitate a police car thus the twp does not collect additional car fees for its use. This same side job that is worked by regular patrol officers warrants them to utilize their own personal vehicle. I'm sure its nice and warm in his car in the winter and extra cool in the summer - at the taxpayers expense."
Isn't this misappropriation of Lawrence Township equipment (take home car), and theft of Lawrence Township property (gasoline that was put into the take home car fuel tank @ the police departments pumps.)
Shouldn't there have been an internal affairs investigation? Oh wait, the Deputy Chief is in charge of internal affairs. Does that mean he gets to investigates himself?
Shannon Penn
11:34 pm on Thursday, May 10, 2012
Why does the Deputy Chief who makes $151,544 a year, who gets a free car and gas, need to work a side job? Could it be, he just likes to take the side job away from the rank and file officers?
Didn't the Administrative Law Judge that heard Hector Nieves case also rule the Lawrence Township Police Department is a "hostile work environment?"
Also,
The Deputy Chief responded by attempting to organize a campaign to force Lee's resignation as union president and stating that there will be drastic measures taken vis-a-vis the FOP. Deputy Chief Prettyman further stated, "If you think the Joe Prettyman who was captain of operations was bad, you haven't seen anything yet. I am going to be a royal ball-buster. You are now going to see who the really bad Joe Prettyman is."
Wasn't the Deputy Chief served with a "cease and desist order" after making this statement?
John
12:44 am on Friday, May 11, 2012
Enough...Sir, well said. As GI Jane has pointed out, the truth is being withheld from us because it brings to light the irresponsible and unprofessional conduct, and what I think is the criminal conduct of most assuredly, the Chief and Deputy Chief, and possibly members of council. As I continue to become informed, I become more disgusted with myself. The trust and faith I have placed in the town council,as well as the Chief of Police and his Deputy, were misguided and abused. I am personally embarassed. I now see the classic indicators of people that have lied and been caught in their own web of deciet. Simply put, the liars (Council members, the Chief of Police, and the Deputy Chief) have reverted to the, lie, deny, and make counter accusastions tactics, in an attempt to deflect further scrutnity of their actions. I was taught that as a leader you must be willing to make sacrafices for the good of all, you cannot be self serving, and never, place yourself before those that you have been entrusted to lead. I feel that the town council,the Chief and Deputy Chief, have violated the the trust of the Public, as well as the officers of the Police Department. If the members of council, as well the Chief and Deputy Chief, have any sense of honor, they would submit their resignations immediately."No man is good enough to govern another man with out that other's consent" President Lincoln
Respectfully,
JFA
grill master
7:52 am on Friday, May 11, 2012
John, Welcome to the real world. Did you really think that Lawrence Twp was exempt from the normal lying and cheating of government?...HAHAHAHA!!!
Taxed to Death
2:35 am on Friday, May 11, 2012
Unreal - A Deputy Chief who makes $151,544 a year, gets a car, and has a side job... Stop it already!!! These guys need to GO!!!! Also, while I admire the men and women in uniform. Not everyone can get a promotion and raise every year. Times are tough. Live with it!!! We the taxpayers cannot afford it!!!
Stinki Garbaage
6:57 am on Friday, May 11, 2012
And the current council and manager continue to argue for perks like longevity pay.
So not only do these people who make 150K plus have side jobs and take home township cars, we also pay them longevity pay EVERY YEAR to retain them.
they won't touch perks like longevity pay. $2,300 per person per year is the max payout. over 400K PER YEAR of our tax money goes right into their pockets for this type of behavior
LONGEVITY PAY, for goodness sake. When does it stop?
Town council Tuesday May 15. Make your voice heard!
John
10:10 am on Friday, May 11, 2012
It appears this article has not been noticed. It seems to make a lot of sense and boils down the current fiscal problems Lawrenceville is facing...
http://lawrenceville.patch.com/blog_posts/a-community-at-a-crossroads
JUST WONDERING?
10:30 am on Friday, May 11, 2012
What ever happened with the other union official that was charged with theft & fraud and the charges were later dismissed? Did he sue yet? Wasn't Prettyman behind those bogus chargers also? Can't wait to see that lawsuit.
Joe Friday
1:46 pm on Friday, May 11, 2012
The police department and township are still pursuing the charges against him internally and are seeking dismissal even after the charges were dropped. I wonder what kind of lawsuit Sparks is going to bring against the township.
Gentler
2:48 pm on Friday, May 11, 2012
He is still owed all of his back pay 100,000+ for the first screw up. The 2 at the top are responsible and the little guy with the big mouth has been protecting them. How much should it cost the town before they are removed. They are criminals and if they retire they will be given a huge retirement package. They should be fired for the way they have acted since obtaining power. Save us taxpayers and can them. Real leaders wouldn't act this way. The next problem is preventing the next people who step into power from doing the same thing. It seems to be an endless cycle of power trips.
budgetman
5:55 pm on Friday, May 11, 2012
I heard another law suit is being filed if the chief and deputy dont announce their retirement. Grab your popcorn and prepare for a huge tax increase to cover the payout for the current and future lawsuits. The only saving grace is if the two inept clowns retirw immediately. I agree that thirteen conduct is criminal because of the money it is costing the taxpayers
CODECRACKER
6:35 pm on Friday, May 11, 2012
2C:30-2. Official misconduct
A public servant is guilty of official misconduct when, with purpose to obtain a benefit for himself or another or to injure or to deprive another of a benefit:
a. He commits an act relating to his office but constituting an unauthorized exercise of his official functions, knowing that such act is unauthorized or he is committing such act in an unauthorized manner; or
b. He knowingly refrains from performing a duty which is imposed upon him by law or is clearly inherent in the nature of his office.
Official misconduct is a crime of the second degree. If the benefit obtained or sought to be obtained, or of which another is deprived or sought to be deprived, is of a value of $200.00 or less, the offense of official misconduct is a crime of the third degree.
David Smith
6:45 pm on Friday, May 11, 2012
Still no comment from the township council or the township manager. What a surprise.
Gentler
9:06 am on Saturday, May 12, 2012
Remember when men were men and the word leader carried a different image. A police force shouldn't be viewed this way and it is a shame our officers have to work under the stress of a department and the road. I work very close to Lawrence in a neighboring town and work closely with that department. The Chief is a leader. The officers respect him and work hard for him. We need that. There are some really good cops in Lawrence but the leaders they have in place are ruining the moral. Also the goons that are se to fill the spots are only going to continue. Get someone with a backbone who isn't affriad to do the job and stop making him answer othe township manager. That guy doesn't know anything about police work so stop letting him be involved.
budgetman
11:36 am on Saturday, May 12, 2012
Gentler your right. Unless someone from the outside takes over the department and grooms someone below the current Lieutenants to take over this will happen again. The only hope is for either one of a select few sergeants to take over the department or keep a director from the outside. Sad but true.
CPA ESQ
7:02 pm on Saturday, May 12, 2012
Seems like the majority of people able to take over as Chief are not Lawrenceville residents. It would be a huge disjustice to have a police chief who was not residing in the township. Please council keep the head of the police department as a township resident. It fosters a care for the town and citizens when the police chief lives in the same town. Get the current police managers out and lets get a good solid stand up person to run the police department. If the right person is promoted regardleas of their rank the department will turn around. Nothing says that the manager cant assist someone as chief with administrative issues as long as the person can be a strong leader and handle the day to day operations of the department.
jasper
9:55 pm on Sunday, May 13, 2012
Any word on what this is going to cost the taxpayers? If council knew of these problems they should pay the legal bil themselves. With seven officers suing including a high ranking sergeant I think this is going to cause one heck of a legal bill. Council and the manager should be ashamed and embarassed for allowing this problem to evolve into this mess.
jasper
9:58 pm on Sunday, May 13, 2012
I agree that once the dust settles the person who should run the police department should always be a township resident. I feel very strongly about this also.
Bob, Esq.
11:04 pm on Sunday, May 13, 2012
Seems like these officers have a pretty good case as the complaint reads. I can validate that Ms. Hartman is a very well respected and experieced attorney. This complaint is very serious for the township and named defendants. Based on the complaint it seems like very sloppy work on the township's part.
TPD
9:00 am on Monday, May 14, 2012
I just read the lawsuit that is attached in the media box of this article. If half of what is written is true the the named parties in the suit should be relieved of their duties immediately. The deputy chief seems to be a real problem with his commets quoted in the complaint. How can the township let him cotinue to work in the capacity he is employed and assume more liability. Any inappropriate comment or action made by the deputy now is going to really put the township in worse liability position. The IA lieutenant and captain both openly blamed the deputy chief by stating he was the root of the problem in a couple of the matters written in the suit. The chief should be cleaning out his desk after allowing this crazy stuff to be happening in his department. He is the chief and has the FINAL say in all matters in the department. What the heck was he thinking? The township manager was apparently contacted by the union and advised of the problems and never addressed them? Guys waiting over a year for discipline hearings, guys being notified and questioned months later for internal affair investigations, officers being served discipline notices while conducting active investigations. My goodness where did the chief and township think that this would end up. I hope the township insurance will cover this payout because this is a losing case for the township if the suit is accurate. Very very sad for a township like Lawrenceville.
Intheknow
12:03 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
The Chief and Deputy Chief should be charged for bringing discredit and disgrace to the department with all this negative publicity.
Intheknow
12:08 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
The Deputy Chief has a Napoleon complex, not because he is short, but because he is sooo obese. In violation of department rules which state an officer must be in physical condition to perform his duties, but rules and regulations don't apply to him !
James Peterson
12:26 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
I think the Manager, Police Chief and Deputy Chief should go out for ice cream because they have this BS lawsuit licked!
Chevy Wins Again
1:43 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
JPJ thanks for the laugh. Remember what the burden of proof in civil court is? Did you read the law suit? Alot of the facts listed seem pretty much undisputable. I would say that the poor attorney who is being forced to defend the township is nothing more than the sacrificial lamb. I heard that the officers attorney is representing them pro bono. For an attorney of her caliber to do a pro bono case (if that is true) she must be pretty confident. Lets noot make excuses and for once lets address the problem.
James Peterson
1:57 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
I did read the lawsuit, that is how I got my laughs. Thank you for that.
The sacrificial lambs are us poor, tax-strapped residents having to pay for the defense of these absurd claims. Thank you for that also.
Code Cracker
4:31 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
I wonder if the last "J" in "JPJ " stands for "Junior". Hmmmm. Is the code cracked? I think so. Go do your homework kid.
James Peterson
5:27 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
Don't wonder too hard genius. I am no junior.
I am one of many taxpayers who are tired of being stuck with the bill to defend against this nonsense.
Code Cracker
6:16 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
Rrrrrrrrright. If you are so concerned why wouldn't you question the mismanagement and lack of leadership that caused this mess? Read the suit it is clear that this didn't happen overnight. Spread your propaganda elsewhere. Put the blame where it belongs. With the deputy chief, chief and manager. "JPJ" you seem like one of the usual clowns
James Peterson
7:01 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
Typical government worker shenanigans we read about every day in this state.
Day in and day out, give me more, more, more.
Just go to work and do your job!
lockdown
7:22 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
interesting that everyone on here agrees but you and wahoo JPJ also interesting is how you try to defend the administration on the OFFICER OF THE YEAR COMMENTS. Save your propanda. Enjoy your ice cream JPJ.
lockdown
7:24 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
like the qoutes as well we all no ur famous for that
Summer White
7:29 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
JPJ - Your same advice should apply to the defendents in this suit. They should have gone to work and done their jobs - the right way. Or doesn't that matter to you? Are you even a resident of Lawrence? Most residents don't want our police force run that way.
Code Cracker
7:40 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
Typical chubby power hungry guy temper tantrum shenanigans is more like it. Put the blame where it belongs with the three incompetent clowns responsible for this mess the manager, chief and deputy chief. There is obviously a problem if SEVEN officers are suing. JPJ how dare you put down the government workers, isn't government work what fills the troth?
James Peterson
9:59 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
Yes I am a resident. Fortunately I don't feed from the troth of deception and entitlements. Never have, never will.
Joe Friday
11:04 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
The rank and file police officers of the Lawrence Township Police Department do go to work and do their jobs day in and day out in spite of the hostile work environment and tyrannical rule of the Chief and Deputy Chief. Under the leadership of the Chief and Deputy Chief, this once proud police department is in shambles and is the laughingstock of Mercer County. There needs to be change and this change needs to happen ASAP.
Stinki Garbaage
6:50 am on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Don't forget to show up tonight at Council and show your displeasure at the utter mis-management with our money, our police, and our town. 17% tax increases, garbage fees, extortion, civil right violations. When, for goodness sake, will this stop?
Who are the real leaders in this town and WHEN are they going to take action? It's the 6 ring circus up there.
6:30 tonight. Tell all your neighbors and friends to show up!
James Adams
7:44 am on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
I love this. Joe Prettyman was a fat little bully back in high school and apparently never matured. I recall the day he tried to pick on one of my friends, and wound up being beaten so bad that he spent three days in the hospital. This was hilarious! Sadly, he does not appear to have learned from that smack down. Poor little prettyman.
BOB LECH
9:37 am on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Gee folks,
I know there are problems on the force and I had my issues with the police.
Can't we at least keep peace here?
There are a few bad apples on the PD but those issues should be taken care of on an unheated,no screaming,name calling *INSIDE* the arena.
But i'm sure that officer Poveromo will make an excellent example of how things should be worked out and other will catch on and follow him
Summer White
12:37 pm on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Could you please tell me what *INSIDE* the arena means ?
Damnskippy
1:41 pm on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Would be nice to get a comment from the chief and dep chief or how about the damn mayor!! Lawrence has been turned into a joke. Time for me to run for mayor. Damn skippy!!!
FF
2:36 pm on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
No one will make a comment because they are all self serving cowards. There ain't a stand up person in the group. All spineless arrogant cowards.,
Michael Ratcliffe
2:14 pm on Wednesday, May 16, 2012
When asked, at the conclusion of the May 15 township council meeting, to comment on the lawsuit, Township Manager Richard Krawczun said, “We will vigorously defend ourselves and the township.”
Joe Friday
2:51 pm on Wednesday, May 16, 2012
And with that folks we are going to be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to defend the actions of the Chief of Police, Deputy Chief, and Township Manager. When the township loses the lawsuit, and chances are they will due to the blatant misconduct of the defendants, we (the taxpayers) will have to pay the legal fees of the officers involved and monetary damages. This lawsuit is going to end up costing us millions of dollars when it is all said and done. All to protect the actions of three individuals who ran our police department and township into the ground. This my fellow taxpayers is the big joke and we are on the short end of the stick in this one. Thanks Danny, Joe, and Richard!
Stinki Garbaage
5:11 pm on Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Hey Joe,
Thank the council as well. Greg, Cathleen, Mike, David, and Mayor Joe "Whispers"
Chikka
9:21 am on Thursday, May 17, 2012
And thank you to Chief Wahoo and JPJ. We know...