Hearings set for police director, promotion reforms Legal concerns from police met, but issues remain contentious in township BY CHRIS GAETANO Staff Writer EDISON - Even after changes to the language, the Policemen's Benevolent Association still opposes a plan to create a police director's position, instead of the traditional chief. While changes in the language of a proposed township ordinance that would institute a police director in lieu of a chief have satisfied some of the legal concerns held by the state Policemen's Benevolent Association, the union remains firm in its opposition to the notion. A n effort led by Edison Mayor Jun Choi to replace the chief of police position with a civilian police director, and greatly reduce the in-grade durational requirements for police promotions, has been under way since January. The move came after the retirement of township's most recent police chief, George Mieczkowski, in November. The proposal immediately came under heavy fire from the local and state PBA. The unions argued that the institution of a police director could infringe on the independence of the department because the director, who serves at the pleasure of the mayor, would be beholden to the administration. Another critique was that a police director, as a civilian, would not have the ability to conduct actual police work, and would not have access to classified records. Therefore, he or she would be ineffectual in actually leading the department. Also, police in Edison have expressed resentment that the department might be headed by what they perceive to be an outsider. It is precisely this outsider status, however, that supporters of the measure say is the advantage of having a director. Proponents say that the department has become too entrenched in its own interests and resistant to reforms that could help the township. This, supporters say, has led to a culture that defies accountability, to the detriment of residents. A police director, they say, is not tenured. Therefore, he or she is more accountable. Since a police chief has tenure, the administration has argued that if someone turns out to be a poor choice for chief, it is extremely difficult to remove him or her. This critique leads to the other proposal, greatly reducing the in-grade requirements for police promotions. Under the current system, police officers must spend three years as a lieutenant to be promoted to captain, and two years as captain to be promoted to deputy chief. The proposal would reduce the number of years as a lieutenant from three to one before the individual could be promoted either to captain or deputy chief. Supporters, Choi in particular, believe that the upper echelons of the command staff are too entrenched in the interests of the department, and that comes at the expense of the community. Choi has previously said that he did not feel the command staff was competent to run the department, but that the midlevel officers were. Regulations, he said, should allow people to rise to their natural skill level. Opponents said that the command staff is perfectly capable of running the department. They pointed to the long list of qualifications and degrees, and also said that the reduction in in-grade requirements would be demoralizing for the people who have been working with the department for years. The police director position and ingrade requirement reduction turned into such contentious issues, in part because the facets touted as advantages by one side were labeled disadvantages by the other. Another objection came from the state PBA over the language of the police director ordinance. That objection led to the measure to be tabled by the council during its Feb. 13 meeting. The original version of the ordinance - to which the state PBA objected - explicitly gave the director day-to-day oversight over the operations of the police department. The PBA said that is illegal, according to an Appellate Court decision in 1999 (PBA vs. North Brunswick). The revised ordinance says that "the police director shall be charged with the duties of supervising the Division of Police in all areas and aspects as it shall impact upon policy and the good order and discipline of the Department and shall adopt rules and regulations for the Division of Police and establish policies for the daily operations of the Division of Police and the discipline of its members." Detective James Ryan, a spokesperson for the state PBA, said that the new ordinance satisfies legal requirements, though the union is still against the director position on principle. "We had discussed some of the revisions made to the ordinance and I know that while, technically, it might comply with our concerns, we think a director is just not the way to go," said Ryan. He noted an initiative in which 150 burglaries were solved as an example of the department's efficiency. "We think the Edison police are some of the best around and to pick a director is a slap in the face," Ryan said. The changes to the ordinance puts it more in line with othermunicipalities that have police directors, such as Elizabeth and Trenton, with slight variations. For example, the Trenton ordinance states that the director is "responsible for the efficient and routine day to day operations of the police department"; the specific responsibilities given to the position are mostly involved with procedural and administrative duties, such as setting policy. Elizabeth has similar language in its police director ordinance. In that community, the responsibilities and powers of the police director involve making rules and policies for the department as a whole, rather than running the department on a day-to-day basis. The police director in that town is also responsible for approving overtime and sick leave. The debate over this issue is not the first time the administration and the police department have been at odds. In August 2006, for example, police and supporters staged a rally demanding Choi's resignation over an internal-affairs investigation involving potential police involvement with the deportation of a man who had been arrested by authorities. The revised police ordinances were introduced during the Feb. 27 council meeting to much debate and argument. CouncilwomanAntonia Ricigliano, and council President Robert Diehl provided the two dissenting votes in a 5-2 decision to introduce the measures. The public hearing on both ordinances before a vote on adopting the initiatives is scheduled for the March 12 council meeting.