Borough Council - Regular Meeting

All the other mics are OK. Please stand for a flex salute.

To the flag of the United States of America, to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

In conformance with the open public meeting of the public law in 1975, Chapter 231, adequate notice of this meeting setting forth the time, date, place, and purpose of the special meeting through notice posted on the Bolton Board of the Municipal Building, may I at all have requested a purchase pursuant to PL 2025 and the applicant's provision of Title 40 and or Title 40A of the New Jersey statute governing legal notice and advertising electronically of official websites of the Borough of Palmton Lakes. Roll call, please. Here.

Here.

Here. Here. Here. Okay, thank you everyone. Okay, I'm sorry.

Thank you, everyone, for attending. Unfortunately, we're going to go into a closed session for about five or 10 minutes. So I'm going to have to ask everybody to step out of the room. I was going to move ourselves out so you guys could stay, but there was no place for us to all fit. So unfortunately, I'm going to have to ask everybody to step out into the hallway. We'll call you right back in as soon as we're done. I appreciate that. Thank you so much.

I was going to wait until everybody got here. OK, good. yeah yeah yeah

All right, we're going to get started because it's going to take some time. Can I have a motion to adjourn to open session? Motion. Councilman Bennett? Second. Councilman Sanchez, all in favor? Aye. Against? All right, I'm going to just give us some simple ground rules before we start. The next part will be a public session where anybody can get up and speak. You have roughly five minutes to say what you'd like to say. Give us your name if you'd like, where you live if you'd like, so I have something to respond to. After everybody talks, then I'll close that session, and then there'll be a discussion about the procedures that we're here to talk about from the attorneys. But that can have a motion to open the public session. Motion. Councilman Hinton, Councilman Cruz, all in favor? Aye. Okay, anybody from the public who'd like to just raise your hand, or come on up.

plane's blocking 530 monday night may 11th as of this moment ryan seshan is the only captain in the pompton lakes police department if you fire him tonight there will be two available captains positions the clear choice for promotion is lieutenant mike klepacki who has more seniority and higher test scores than anyone in the department, including the chief, and has been passed over already. His test score, one of the highest in the state, is valid until midnight tonight. Tomorrow, you can do the same thing you did with Mr. Rodriguez. Eliminate all competition for the remaining lieutenants one of whom is the mayor's son-in-law. This has to stop. There's a lot at stake for a number of people. Please be true to your oath of office and be honest with the people of Palmton Lakes.

Thank you. Anyone else like to speak? Going once, going twice. Please step up.

Respectfully, I see the five-minute limit. I just want to make sure it's not going to be an issue. There's a couple things I have to say.

You said you want to go over the five-minute?

Yeah, I may go over the five minutes.

Okay, as long as it's not a lot.

No, it'll be 20 minutes. Don't worry.

Okay.

For as long as I can remember, I wanted to be a police officer. I remember being a fifth grader at Lincoln Elementary School and taking part in the D.A.R.E. program with Officer Moe. Even then, I knew my calling was law enforcement. I love the idea of fighting crime and making the community safer. For 10 years, this job brought me tremendous joy and gave me a deep sense of purpose. I truly felt I was put on this earth to be part of the Ponton Lakes Police Department. I made countless arrests, wrote thousands of tickets, and did everything in my power to hone my craft. I loved covering overtime shifts, reading case law, and studying the Attorney General guidelines in my days off. None of it ever felt like work. I dedicated myself to the job and it paid off with promotions, accolades, and most importantly, the respect of my coworkers. In 2017, I witnessed an incident involving a supervisor and felt compelled to report it through the proper channels. I did not necessarily want to get involved, but I believed I had an obligation to do the right thing. That decision changed the entire trajectory of my career. After being promoted to captain in 2019, the individual who I had reported had taken over the police department. and my professional life changed drastically. The job I once loved became unbearable. My mental and physical health suffered immensely. Day after day, I was berated, demeaned, undermined, ridiculed, subjected to heightened scrutiny, and micromanaged. There were condescending emails, bits of rage, the silent treatment, countless write-ups, unprecedented performance improvement plans, board evaluations, never-ending internal affairs investigations, restrictions on who I could speak with, limitations on responding to calls for service, and the stripping away of my responsibilities. After being promoted three times in 10 years and previously being regarded as one of the most competent officers in the department, it suddenly appeared as though I had become the worst officer in the world overnight. That weighed heavily on me. I spent years walking on eggshells while constantly trying to avoid being the subject of the next internal investigation. Prior to this, I had never needed an attorney for anything But for six straight years, I had him on speed dial to address the ongoing complaints that were being filed against me by my chief. There were many sleepless nights where I stared at the ceiling asking myself, what did I do to deserve this? Getting out of bed became a struggle. Most days I felt physically ill while driving to work. This routine continued for years. I saw help from the borough, internal affairs, the prosecutor's office, and the union. But no one was willing or able to meaningfully intervene. Chief Clark was permitted to run rampant for years with no oversight. Eventually, I came to the realization that there were only two possible outcomes, to resign or wait to be terminated. I could not bring myself to walk away from everything I had worked for, so I stayed, and I endured it, knowing there was never going to be a happy ending for me. I was forced to accept the fact that this was my life and there was absolutely nothing I could do about it. In 2023, I briefly saw a glimmer of hope. At the time, I was facing a lengthy suspension, for my attendance at a training course and for failing to advise Chief Clark that an employee was upset with him regarding something that he had said about her. My attorney sent numerous letters to the borough raising concerns about the retaliation and harassment I had experienced while also discussing potential litigation. As a result, discussions took place and a settlement was reached. I personally made only two requests regarding the settlement agreement. First, I requested a meeting with the borough administrator in the May. That meeting took place on October 20th. where I openly expressed my concerns and reviewed what I had experienced over the years. Second, I requested a meeting with the chief and the mediator because I genuinely wanted to repair our relationship and move forward in a professional and productive manner. I never asked for special treatment. I just wanted to be treated fairly. Instead of scheduling that mediation session, three new disciplinary charges were initiated against me within a month. In my opinion, those charges were purposely intended to ruin my career. I could stand here for hours discussing the investigative issues, procedural concerns, and inconsistencies involved in this matter. But this is not the time or the place for that debate. This case was never truly about battery backups, overtime approvals, or jail cell inspections. This was about making sure that I never succeeded him as the next chief. This was about keeping me from retiring in good standing with a pension. This was about destroying my reputation. Ultimately, this was about retaliation in a long-standing condo. When someone has a target on their back, they don't stand a chance. If I were given unrestricted access to every system in this department, I could likely identify hundreds of policy violations committed by the officers at PLPD. None of us are perfect. We all make mistakes, myself included. But discipline should always be fair, proportionate, consistent, and it should serve a purpose. Are we attempting to correct behavior to ensure the safety of the public and the police officers, or are we looking to settle the score? When meting out discipline, these important questions should always be asked. Was this a mistake of the mind or a mistake of the heart? Is this discipline proportionate to the allegations? Was the investigation conducted fairly and impartially? What actual harm resulted? What prompted the investigation in the first place, and is there potentially an ulterior motive? Those questions matter because fairness matters. I know everyone sitting here before me tonight. I know you are all decent, hardworking, and honest people. You have a thankless job and 11,000 people who are constantly looking to you for answers. My criticism is directed at the passive hands-off approach that allowed these issues to escalate over the years. Good leadership requires confronting difficult problems before they spiral out of control. Based on my experience, a dangerous precedent has been set. If employees observe concerning conduct, they may now think twice about reporting it as fear of retaliation. And if retaliation does occur, they may fear that speaking up will only exacerbate their issues and lead to termination of their employment. My hope is that something positive can still come from this. We have good officers in the department who care deeply about this town and who have risked their lives for the people in this room and in this community. No employee should ever be made to feel the way that I and others have felt. I wouldn't wish that upon anyone. When the stressors of this job are combined with mental health issues, family issues, financial issues, it becomes a recipe for disaster. Police show these officers that they are valued employees and not just a name or a number on a piece of paper. Pizza parties and award ceremonies can serve as good motivating tools. But at the end of the day, officers need to know that someone here cares about them when it matters the most. If someone is being mistreated, they have to believe that there is an avenue for relief. They have to believe that policies will be adhered to and there will be someone to listen when inter-office politics are ruining his or her life. The greatest fear for many officers is not the criminal on the street with the hoodie and the ski mask. It's the fear of the vindictive supervisor who can destroy a career with a stroke of the head. Respectfully, I do not believe this process was truly neutral or impartial. The outcome was predetermined before the investigation began. A hearing officer is retained and compensated by the town while also maintaining a longstanding professional relationship with the individual filing the charges it inevitably raises concerns regarding whether explicit or implicit bias is present. I urge each of you to independently review the briefs, transcripts, testimony, and evidence, rather than simply deferring to a recommendation that, in my view, does not fully reflect the factual and legal realities of this case. If you do, I believe you will see I was not the individual engaging in any outrageous misconduct. I trust that the Council understands the gravity of their decision tonight. This is an extremely convoluted case with a number of complex issues. I'm somehow being charged with untruthfulness after the primary investigator testified that I was in fact truthful. Evidence that would appear to be was purposely destroyed after the investigation was initiated. My due process rights were violated again and again without consequence. I trust that you will give this decision the attention it deserves as you decide on what is in the best interest of the borough and the police department. Before we head down a long and expensive path of litigation and appeals, I implore you to study this case, along with my notice of tort claim, so you can cast an informed vote. I've dedicated my life to serving this now, and I simply ask to be treated with the same fairness and consideration that I have shown others throughout my career. I always wanted to be a police officer, and despite everything that's happened, I still do. I'm asking for the opportunity to continue serving this community and doing what I believe I was put on this earth to do. Thank you for your time, and God bless.

Thank you.

Anyone else from the public would like to address? Seeing no one, can I have a motion to close the public session? Motion. Councilman Bennett? Second. Council President Kent, all in favor? Aye. Against? OK. At this point now, I want to pass it off to the people representing us and to talk about the case in general and the outcome.

Thank you, Mayor. So ladies and gentlemen, Captain Shoshone, you just heard from him, he was working on charges with allegations that alleged neglected duty come to become a public employee and other sufficient cause, which in layman's terms is violates the implicit standard of good behavior that delves on all public employees. The underlying allegations to support those charges related to falsified, the most egregious, what I'll say, jail checks. State of New Jersey requires that cells be checked for contraband weapons on a daily basis and on a weekly basis. Those reports will be signed and filed by the people doing those checks. Here, it was alleged that Captain Shashan falsified those records, that he in fact did those checks. The evidence showed that at least 18 times when he signed off on the date that he had done those checks, he was on vacation or wasn't at work. It also showed that the FOB, which gets you into that, you know, the records that show you getting into the detention area, he never accessed it. Never went in there on multiple occasions, more than just the 18th. And he admitted to Internal Affairs that he did not do the required check.

Could you just explain to the audience what Internal Affairs is?

All right, so Internal Affairs is... The internal agency within the police department that investigates allegations of police misconduct is set up by the attorney general's office through what Captain Shichun mentioned, the internal affairs policies and procedures that have been adopted by the attorney general. They are law. There's a statute that says the IA guidelines established by the attorney general are law in the state of New Jersey. And so internal affairs is charged with, under the supervision of the prosecutor's office and the chief of police, to investigate allegations of police misconduct, whether they come from outside the agency or within the agency. Here, there was an allegation of failure to do battery checks, failure to do overtime approvals, and then failure to do the detention checks. Two of those three came from someone other than the chief of police, came from other people within the department. So you need to understand that it's laid out in Chief Aduka's report. The chief found that the detention logs, which was a breach of the conduct, were signed when he never entered the jail area, and thus he could not have completed those checks as required. His argument through his attorney was, it's duplicative. Officers are doing daily checks, why do I have to do weekly checks? Because you're required to do the weekly checks. They are public documents. They are records of the police department. And he was just signing off as if he had done them when they hadn't happened, when those checks had not occurred. As I said before, there were 18 separate occasions when he signed those locks for times when he was either on vacation or not at work. And the rule is if you document something that you did it on a date certain, you better have done it on that date. That's the rule. It's a simple rule, right? If I do something, I say I did it and I did it on this date. And what they discovered here was that that didn't happen. Hearing officer also included that during the internal affairs interview with Lieutenant Koplacki, that Captain Shashan lacked candor during his interview, was not truthful with the lieutenant, and his answer contradicted that he did the jail checks by the records relative to entry into the jail detention area of the FOBs that we're talking about, right, being able to swipe and get in. So if you could just go back, who did the interview? Explain how that interview went and who did it. So the case was assigned to Lieutenant Klopacki. He was the IA officer. He was the one who did the interview of Captain Shashone. So after multiple days of hearings, after multiple witnesses, and I'll note, Captain Shashone did not testify at the local hearing. He didn't have to testify. But he didn't testify. He could have, I guess, explained to the hearing officer what he said to you tonight. He could have gotten up on the stand and taken that, but he would have been subject to cross-exam by Mr. Shapiro here had he elected to testify. Again, his right not to testify, but I find it interesting that tonight he makes statements that aren't subject to cross-exam. Following all the multiple days of hearings, multiple witnesses, experts, The hearing officer then compiled everything that he had heard over months and months of testimony, issued a 15-page report. He found Captain Shashan guilty of all the charges that were brought against him, and the most egregious being the falsification of records. And the reason that that's important for you to understand is officers are charged within the Attorney General guidelines to be truthful. They absolutely say, honestly, is an essential function for any police officer. Police officers who can't be truthful cannot be police officers. Why is that? Because police officers get up on the stand, they raise their hand in municipal court, criminal court, superior court, and swear to tell the truth. An officer found guilty of untruthfulness now has a black mark next to his name and can be cross-examined about, well, you're saying this event happened here, and that's true, but in the past, when somebody questioned what you did, you provided false information, or you filed a false police report. So it creates issues that can be exposed by criminal defense attorneys, municipal defense attorneys, to the officers. So in 2017, when the guidelines were amended, and then again in 2019, the Attorney General said enough, and created a policy within the guidelines themselves that quoted exactly what I just said to you. So that's the problem here. this almost admitted conduct of, yes, I falsified the jail checks, but it's no big deal, is a big deal. Those are department records or official records of those detention cells, and they're false, admittedly false. And the hearing officer found that, and he recommended termination. So what's for you is the decision, if anyone disagrees with that recommendation, disagrees with the hearing officer findings, That's what's being asked of me.

All right. Before I open it up to everyone, for everyone that's here, and I thank you for coming, this is not something we enjoy doing or being involved with. Believe me, this is not something we're running on saying we want this to happen. We wish it didn't happen, to be honest. We wish everything was the way it was before we started. Unfortunately, we're not there, and this is what we have to deal with. There are rules and regulations set up by the state, not by us, by things that happened in this case. Now, he has the opportunity to go further with this if he would like, so do we. But at the end of the day, there were things that were found to be untruthful. And to be untruthful as an officer is a big deal. It's not just like any other job. You're an officer and you're untruthful, that's a problem. At the end of the day, if we had concerns about these other things, and I've met with the applicant about some of the things he brought up, and I did listen to what he had to say, and I did have meetings with the old chief and him to try to straighten these problems out. That is separate from what went on with this, though, unfortunately. That's what we have to deal with. As a council and as a group up here, that's what we're looking at. We're dealing with the facts that were presented to us by both sides of the attorneys and by the investigation that was done by our own people that we have to judge by. We can't judge it by how he reacted to the old chief or the new chief. So we're just going by the facts. So with that, I'm going to open up. The last thing I'll add is, if you want to just add, because I know it's going to come up, We're not here to discuss his licensing, his pension. Explain where that would come from, either one of you, how that works.

Sure. So pension is, that's up to the pension system. Off the top of my head, I don't know how much service time Captain Chisholm has in the pension system, but regardless of that, that decision is made by the pension system. relative to his Police Training Commission license, the PTC license, even if you were to conclude that a lesser penalty is appropriate, a greater penalty is appropriate, something along those lines, The ultimate determination by PTC is theirs and theirs alone. Who's PTC? Police Training Commission. That's their decision alone, and Captain Shoshana would have the right to even challenge their decision, but that's separate and apart from us. They take a look at the IA file. They take a look at, now, the entire hearing file and then determine whether or not his license should be suspended or revoked. But that's their call. Our only involvement in that would be a conduit to provide information that they request. The AGs would prosecute those charges, and Captain Shashone would have due process to challenge those, of course, just as he would at any other due process.

Right. So what you're saying, just so I want to make sure the message is heard, no matter what we decide here, this is still going to go to licensing. And they're going to make their own determination of what they feel is right, no matter what we say.

Yeah, I'll give you a perfect example. The council is free to say, we think that removal is too harsh. You could say that. And you can impose some lesser penalty. PTC at some point in time is going to look at this matter because Captain Shashone will have to go through renewals. Licenses through PTC are only good for three years, okay? And so licenses get renewed, and when they get renewed, one of the things that they'll ask the department is, please provide me with every IA file that you have on that officer, whether it was sustained or not sustained, right? An officer could have a demeanor complaint, they pulled somebody over, they stopped them, the person didn't like the way they opened the pocket, it was investigated, it was unfounded, it was not sustained, they still want that file too. So they'll ask for those files, they'll review those files, they'll do an independent review, and then they make the ultimate determination about, again, suspension, revocation of that license based on standards that they apply based on the new law.

Okay, I'm going to open it up. Questions, anybody?

I have a question. Sure. So on the hearing decision, we kind of can't hear you. Sorry. Can't hear me?

No, you were very low, too.

Okay, I'll get closer. This better? Okay. All right, so on the hearing decision document that we received and we reviewed, on the very last page, page 14, it talks about recommended penalty. Recommended penalty.

I don't think they're like so on. Yeah.

I think my own point, Heather.

We'll just talk loud, talk loud. Okay.

All right, I'll talk loud. On the hearing decision document that we received, we all received, on the recommended, on page 14, there's a section at the very bottom, it says recommended penalty. And the hearing officer says, I am recommending termination for the violations as proposed by the borough. I base this recommendation on the falsification of the records and the lack of candor during the internal affairs investigation. The borough is free to implement any penalty they deem appropriate. My question to you, our attorney, is what is a penalty and What are we free to implement that penalty? I don't understand what that means.

So your hearing officer makes a recommendation on penalty. He says removal, but ultimately you're the decider of that. So when he says you're free to implement any penalty you deem appropriate, penalty would be a suspension without pay, that's a penalty. If I'm suspended without pay from work, that's a penalty. If I'm demoted, that is a penalty. Or if I'm removed from employment, that is a penalty. So those are kind of the three penalties that you have of penalties to consider. In civil service, so you know, no suspension can be longer than six months. civil service and the courts say, if you want to suspend the police officer or any public employee for longer than six months, you terminate them. There is no suspension greater than six months. So the hearing officer is saying, look, this is my recommendation, this is what I'm telling you, but you're the decision maker, you decide what the penalty should be. Any other questions?

So right now, it's been over...

I think I'm pretty loud. So right now, it's been over two years that he's been out. You said not over six months. It's been over two years.

But no penalty has been imposed yet, right? It's not final. So civil service also allows for the suspension of an officer who's either been charged or is under investigation. That's at the discretion of the employer to do so. It just took, you know, multiple hearing dates. The hearing started, you know, months after he was charged and took months to complete.

Okay, why don't you talk about the other list that's involved, that police officers on the Brady-Giglio list.

Right, so I alluded to that before, right? When officers are deemed, and, you know, PDC will look at this, and I use that, that's the acronym, News-Driving Commissioner Cesar from the state PDC. So Brady-Giglio is a list, it comes out of a Supreme Court, a U.S. Supreme Court case that dealt with exculpatory evidence for the fact, okay? In the Brady v. Maryland case, And what the Supreme Court said was if you have exculpatory evidence, which in that case was did the police officers falsify reports or have indications that somebody else may have committed the crime, they were required, the prosecutors were required to come forward and provide that information to the defense counsel. So it became Brady material. Well, coupled within the Brady material are findings by police officers that they falsified records, that they've been untruthful. There's a litany of items that would trigger Brady that end up in personnel files. And the department is required, as a matter of law, to provide the prosecutor's office with Brady material for any officer who may be a material state witness. And the federal government, the US Attorney's Office in Newark will consistently ask the department for Brady Giglio material in an officer's file so that they can determine whether or not that person is permitted to participate in police activities because they don't want to have an officer who has Brady material to be somebody who's investigating crimes and being a material state witness against a potential criminal defendant. So Mayor, that is Brady Giglio material.

Any other questions, Senator? So as far as the penalties are concerned, it's not absorbing all of them. We can decide within those penalties what we want to apply. If you can't hear me, I'm really loud. I am loud. I am loud. They're acknowledging right now that they can hear me. So I'm pretty loud in council meetings. I'll speak louder so everybody can hear me. My question is simple. Out of all the things they're charging right now, Does it have to be all or nothing? Or can we be selective? Regardless, I know the licensing division has to handle it or anything else as far as council is concerned. Is that something I think that we can do here as far as making our decision? I don't want to vote on everything, for example. Let's say, for example, we're up to vote. We're going to decide. I may not agree with everything. So is that something we can't do here, or is that something that we have to...

So what we're voting on today is this case, not about all the other parts of the case. We're just voting on where we want to... The discipline should be. It's been recommended discipline of dismissal. We're voting on the recommendation of the magistrate on this.

But not on the licensing? We have nothing to do with the licensing.

We have nothing to do with that. You have nothing to do with PTC. You have nothing to do with pensions. All you're determining is what the hearing officer included and recommended. Included guilt, and he recommended removal. But you have the discretion as the body that decides the penalties to be imposed against a police officer, whether it should be removal, it should be demotion, or it should be a suspension, or a combination of suspension and demotion.

By just to answer your question, when they get to those stages, we still won't have any sale. That'll all be done. There's been times where people have been found innocent of something they were accused of, and licensing still takes their license because they didn't like the way it was approached. They're an independent organization that's made up through the state. It has nothing to do with us. We won't be invited to that. Same thing with pensions. They might ask and tell me if I'm saying something wrong, Mike, or they'll ask for our information that we have about pensions. We'll send everything to pensions and they'll make their determination on the pension. You know, if there's something that comes up in there, you know, we would work with them. We would try to help them. But there's nothing that comes from this body that's going to be talked about in the pension.

So potentially we could reinstate and then the licensing and pension could be taken away and we still have an officer reinstate it.

Licensing, yes. I'm not sure about pension.

Mike, do you know anything about the pension? No.

I can't really speak about the pension. He had spoke that it's a different... It is a different group. It's a different group that decides that. I'm going to ask Boris, unfortunately, and I don't like doing this, but could you list all the charges just so everybody understands what we're talking about? What was brought up in the case? What was it? Sure. Because I don't know if everybody understands. The actual underpinnings, the actual charges. The charge.

Excuse me one second, Mayor. Can you move that microphone further in front of you so the back of the room can hear you better? Thank you.

Thank you. There is essentially three elements to the charges, each more serious than the last. I'd say the least serious of which was failure to approve a dispatcher's overtime in a timely manner. The second matter, which is more serious than the first, would be failure to conduct weekly checks of the battery backups. And these battery backups are connected to the various computers as well as servers within the police departments. For example, there's two battery backups connected to the console at dispatch. So, God forbid there's a power outage and these battery backups click in, so that way the power does not go out at the dispatch. Brian Chisholm's responsibility as the captain and the communications officer was to check these battery backups on a weekly basis to make sure that they weren't at their end-of-life cycle, so they could be replaced before they died. So if there was an emergency or a power outage, you would not lose power to the dispatch or the console or the computer, so on and so forth. And the third part of these charges, and the most serious by far, was the fact that Ryan did not conduct the weekly inspections of the jail cells, which are required by law, that he falsified the records to indicate that he conducted these weekly inspections, which he had not, and also that he was untruthful during the course of his internal affairs interview.

So explain that. What does that mean, he was untruthful? So how did that work? How did that come about?

During the course of the internal affairs investigation, which was conducted by Lieutenant Klopacky, he had interviewed a number of witnesses. One of those witnesses was Ryan Shashone. During the course of the interview, Ryan Shashone, with his attorney present, provided answers to questions that were posed by Lieutenant Klopacky to Ryan. Ryan provided untruthful statements, who's less than truthful in his responses to Lieutenant Klopacki during the course of this interview, which lasted, I forget exactly how long, but approximately an hour or so. Thank you.

Was there any conversation with his attorney and our attorneys about offering him a plea bargain down before the judgment was given out? Do we know anything about that?

Yes, so during the course of the hearings, which proceeded over the course of seven days and took some time to conclude, there were conversations between myself and Ryan's attorney to determine whether or not it was possible to reach an amicable resolution of the matter.

And didn't the judge himself ask to try to do that?

Yes, yes. At the end of the day, we could not come to terms on an amicable resolution.

Could you talk about what they were or you can't talk about them?

I can talk about it. So, again, there was numerous discussions, but at the end of the day, the borough offered Ryan, in lieu of termination, a double demotion to the position of sergeant. There was other terms and conditions to that agreement, but a double demotion was offered to him and he declined. My understanding was that Ryan was not interested in taking any sort of a motion.

Just one last question. When you talk about falsifications, you said there were like 18 when he was not present. How many falsifications overall were the total?

Sure. So Ryan became captain in 2019, around September of 2019. And when he became a captain and a communications officer, he was responsible in conducting these weekly inspections of the jail facility. As part of that duty, we're required to sign off on these check sheets. Now the check sheets contain a list of items supposed to check, alarms on, and so forth. And there's also a space there to indicate whether or not whatever you were inspecting was in satisfactory condition. And then at the bottom of this check sheet, there's a line that says inspecting officer to sign here. So Ryan Shashone had signed off on these check sheets I'd say over 200 times. Now, it was found through a review of the KEEPOP data, for example, for 2023, although Captain Sean was supposed to go into this facility on a weekly basis, he was only in the facility itself approximately five times. And none of those times were on date that he indicated that he was in the actual facility. Obviously, as police officers, you may go in there for other reasons, such as if you bring somebody in who's been arrested and needs to check in and so on and so forth. But on none of those days that he indicated in 2023, for example, that he was in that facility, did the key FOB data support that he was actually in that facility doing inspection or otherwise. Additionally, aside from that, a review of his personnel file indicated that on 18 days in particular where he indicated that he was in the facility doing his inspection, he was actually on vacation or otherwise out on some sort of paid leave. Thank you.

Okay. Any other questions? And while he was on vacation, nobody else covered those inspections or?

He was asked about that by Lieutenant Klopacki during the course of the Federal Affairs Review and he indicated that no, he never asked anybody to conduct inspections while he was on vacation.

Did he need to ask anybody to cover that? I mean, obvious if he's on vacation and he's the only one that's supposed to be doing it, all the other, excuse me, officers know he's on vacation. The chief wouldn't assign somebody else to do the inspections?

Well, it's his responsibility to conduct an inspection. Correct. So if he's not available to do so, that would be a responsibility to ask somebody else. His responsibility or the chief's? His responsibility. Or if he's out for a day, then theoretically he can come back and do it the following day. But he indicated that he never asked anybody else to conduct inspections. when he was out on vacation?

But the chief runs the show. He's the one that, knowing he's going on vacation, wouldn't you think that the chief would make sure that he had somebody covered?

He's a captain, and that's part of his responsibility.

We understand that. But the chief oversees the entire department.

The captain has responsibilities. The lieutenants have responsibilities. We understand that. That they go responsible for.

But he's responsible for the entire department, and he should make sure that it was covered. I don't think it works that way.

I could be wrong. The point here is he signed while he was on vacation. The date that was on the record was the date he was on vacation. Correct. So he signed the paperwork.

Obviously that was his mistake, correct. But what I'm saying is the chief oversees the entire department. Before he goes on vacation, I would think that He might have spoken to him and said, did you make sure that somebody is covering your assignments while you're on vacation?

The chief respectfully is not his babysitter. He has responsibilities that he needs. The chief was in the military.

Quiet, please, please, please. There was no talking from the audience. Please, please.

That's it.

I don't want you to have to remove me. Please, you know that. He was in the military. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Please.

So was I too.

It doesn't mitigate his misconduct.

No, I agree with that. He made a mistake in that respect, for sure. But I would think that the chief that oversees the entire department should make sure all the T's are crossed and the I's are dotted. And should have had somebody checking that, I would think. That's the issue that I have with a lot of this procedure, whereas- So you don't have an issue with him not being here and signing for it?

No, obviously he made a mistake. Is that a mistake or a lie? That's how you gotta look at it.

It could be a lie, yes, you can look at it as a lie. It's not a criminal charge, there's no criminal charges here, correct?

No, it was reviewed by the prosecutor's office, they declined the prosecution. Right, so there's no- It is a crime that falls by public record. It was looked at, the prosecutor's office declined the prosecution.

Why?

Prosecutorial discretion has better things to do with sick hands.

So they didn't really think that it was that big a deal?

No, I didn't say that. I just said prosecutorial discretion. They returned it to the department for administrative handling. Okay. They may have had an idea, like if I have a police officer that falsified something 18 times, pretty good idea what the finding might be on that, right? So why waste prosecutorial money, send it back to the town and have them do it?

So just so everybody understands the way that that works is our departments or every police department can send things to the county to check it out. They have the opportunity to either say, yes, we'll take a look at that, or they'll send it back to the town and they say, you take care of it yourself. Nine out of ten, unless it's very severe stuff, they send it back to the town. There are some circumstances where they'll keep things, but it's their discretion on how they handle looking at that stuff. It's not ours, it's theirs. Okay, any other questions, concerns, comments? No, all right, Mike, so what are we doing now here? What am I reading?

You need a motion and a second to implement penalties you see fit.

Okay, what I'm gonna do with this, so we're going with the judgment that was presented by our professionals, which is, I hate to say it, unfortunate dismissal. And we're going to take a roll call on that, Liz. So can I have a motion?

And if I may, Mayor, and correct me if I'm wrong, but that motion could be, the motion to pursue the recommendation could be subject to a motion. Yes. And that motion could be to reduce it if there is a desire to do that, in which case it would have to be seconded. Right. And then there's a roll call on that reduction. If the reduction is not seconded, then it dies. The clerk will indicate as such, and then there's a roll call on the initial motion for the initial discipline, correct? Right.

There's a lot of word motion in there. You've got to work me through that.

So the initial resolution is on the recommendation of removal. So that's what you're moving to do is whether you're going to accept the recommendation of removal.

Okay.

So that's correct, but it could be amended because I understand there's been dialogue. No, I understand. I just want to let the governing body know what their options are.

Okay. So we could do a motion to a reduction.

Well, it had to be seconded. If it's not seconded, you can't.

I would suggest that for that motion to have any sort of meaning, it should accompany what the recommendation is.

Oh, what the reduction should be?

Correct. And I also believe that Mr. Thibault had indicated that the next step below termination is a maximum of a six-month suspension.

Demotion would actually be the next penalty. So in the penalty, you know, it's suspension of whatever time from one day to 180 days. The next penalty, which is, you know, would that be a demotion, right? And then the final would be the rule.

So I have a question on demotion. Sure. On demotion, does that include title as well as your salary?

Yes, if you're demoted in rank, you would then have the rank complemented with your rank. You have the salary set forth in the PBA contract with your rank. So the demotion from captain to sergeant comes with that title and the salary now for sergeant.

And it would also have to be accepted by the plaintiff.

No, if you oppose that, I mean, he could reject it and appeal it. Right, that's what I'm saying. He could still appeal that.

Just because we offer something also doesn't mean he's going to accept it.

You're not offering it. You're opposing it by your vote tonight if that were the decision, right? If the decision was we're going to demote him to sergeant, right? you're gonna impose that by your vote, but Captain Shashan would have the right to appeal that penalty of demotion to civil service and challenge that as he would the removal or as he would a major suspension, which is more than five days.

And let me just, again, civil service, we have nothing to do with that either. That's a civil service matter, right? That all has to do with them, not with us. So what we're here doing is discussing the ability of what we want to do from the things you've heard that he has done, which he's admitted to doing most days through an interview with our own people. So, you know, that's what we're judging our decision by. Okay, we're not discussing anything that could happen with licensing or civil service or maybe with his pension. That has nothing to do with any of our discussion and it will not have anything to do with our discussion. What we're deciding now is if you heard what he thought was Well, you thought it was egregious enough for dismissal. That's what was presented by an outside party that looked at both sides. Remember, this outside party, I know it was brought up that he works for us, he does not work for us. He's an independent contractor, basically, who hears both sides, gets all the information from both sides, and then makes his decision. It could have went against us, too, from the same person. We just want to make sure we're all on the same page when we're making that decision.

Mr. Mack, can I? Sure. Anybody, any help here? So maybe, and again, this is for the benefit of the governing body. I'm not sure if the governing body knows the order of rights. I think that if they're considering demotion, we should at least let people know what they are. My understanding is captain, lieutenant, sergeant, patrolman, correct? Yes. And are they able to do a combination of demotion and suspension? Or is it one or the other? Yes. You can do both. Okay. And if it's suspension, it's a maximum of six months? Yes. And is there any limitation on downgrading for the demotion? No. You can demote all the way down to patrol officer. Okay. I just wanted everyone to understand what the options are.

And just as I mentioned before, that was offered before the settlement had come out. We had offered with that.

What did you exactly offer? What title?

Sergeant or patrolman, yes. Sergeant or patrolman. And we were told by two attorneys that that was not acceptable. And that was before the judgment was out.

How long ago was that?

I can't give you times. Maybe before. Do you know when you had that discussion?

So again, there were some discussions throughout the course of the hearings, but the most recent Discussion occurred after the briefs were submitted, but before a decision was rendered by the hearing officer. At that time, the offer was a double demotion to the sergeant. Prior to that, there was an offer to demote him to patrol officer. But we offered to demote him to sergeant, and he was still not interested in that.

That was six months ago, a year ago?

three months ago. I didn't mean two.

The decision just came out at the end of last month.

It was sometime in early April. That was the last medication on the sergeant.

Okay. So I'm looking for a motion for as it's written, dismissal.

I just want to say something really quick. It has nothing to do with this. I mean, it does, but Regardless of the outcome of what we vote on, I'll speak personally that I'm not for you losing your license, okay? I think if you want to be a police officer and you have identified where you did wrong and what you can do better, you know, again, regardless of our decision, I really hope it does work out in your favor in that sense, okay? Because I don't want you to lose your license. But we have to make a decision here based on these findings. And I'm struggling with that because that's not our call. It's somebody else. You know, I'm just a little bothered that, you know, some of this I wish would have came out sooner because making this decision just now without pondering for a day or two, we read and go through this again because it was a moving space.

Well, we have the opportunity, if you'd like, to make the decision on Wednesday. I mean, I don't know. Nothing's changing. We're not going to have this whole thing again. But if you want to sit on it and think about it, you can.

Is there any time frame that they're subject to?

20 days, right?

It's 20 days.

20 days from the date of the... So there's no case law. There's a rule in civil service that says that a decision we run within 20 days of the hearing unless the parties agree to a time otherwise. It's a regulation. My opinion of that, that 20 day time period is blown. The parties agreed to brief the hearing. The hearing ended, what was the last day of the hearing? So the last day of the hearing was November 17, 2025. The parties had briefed it, then there was reply briefs and serve reply briefs. So the 20 days, it might be, was done as of November 17 when the parties agreed to In most cases, like you see on TV and you see in court, closings are done orally. You stand in front of the jury, you stand in front of the judge, and you close the case, and it's over. And that happens sometimes in local hearings. The parties agree to close orally, and the hearing is closed, and that's it. You have 20 days. But the parties can sometimes agree, especially in a case this heavy, can say to the hearing officer, take your time, we're not worried about the 20-day rule, and also knowing full well that the hearing officer isn't the one imposing that penalty. It's coming to the appropriate authority, in your case, the entire council. So in my view, the 20 days is gone. It was gone on December 7th, give or take, right? But the parties agreed to a process. So I'm not worried about the 20-day rule. I don't see a time constraint here. Mark?

So you think that we're as safe on Wednesday as we are today? We're safe on Wednesday as we are today.

But whatever we decide today or Wednesday, we start with the motion first, and then we go from there. That's where we're starting from. There's no in between of that, because that's what's presented to us. So we start with that.

So I can make a motion that we table this decision until Wednesday, our council meeting?

Right, but all that's going to happen is we're not going to have this discussion again. We're just going to make the motion to follow. There's not going to be another discussion.

We can make a motion for a reduction in the motion also. Let's go back.

The first thing is a motion. I'll dismiss it because that's what's presented to us. If that doesn't pass, then someone can make a motion to change that. That would have to have a second. If that doesn't have a second, that can't happen either.

So the termination is the first vote? Yes, it has to be the first vote, yes. And if the majority votes to terminate, then it's all over.

Maybe let me ask just a quick question. In the event that there is no motion to move the initial, then would it be appropriate for us to ask if there is a motion that's altering or tabling? Well, not necessarily tabling, but I think that based upon the question that Councilman Hinton had mentioned, if there isn't a first and a second, sorry, if there isn't a first on the initial removal, how do we get to the reduced?

So we can make a motion to amend the recommendation to the motion, something less than that. Yeah, okay. And then there's a second, and then we'll .

Okay, so that's how we would handle that. If the initial motion isn't made, then you could ask a motion to amend the recommendation and impose discipline.

All right, so let me just say this. And look, again, I'm going to say this for the audience and for everybody up here. This is not something we really are looking at doing. We don't enjoy doing what we're doing here. This is a hard thing. This is not a good thing. But this board is picked to make these decisions. This is what we have to do. One way or the other, we're making a decision. We can't just say no decision. Okay, so whatever we decide, it's going to be a decision that's made. Can't change that decision. If you need more time to think about it, fine, you can think about that. That's not doing anything. But we're not doing this whole thing again. You know the parameters that we're dealing with? You know where we're coming from? So the first step is, does anybody want to make a motion as it reads right now?

I have one question. If he was demoted, I don't know if this could be answered, and the state finds him and takes his license. What kind of police work can he do after the license is taken and what responsibility will the town have as an employee of the town as an officer?

It's hypothetical, but if PTC revokes the license, he can't be a police officer. He couldn't even be a dispatcher. He couldn't have access to police stuff. So you'd be going through this all over again on an inability to perform the duties of a police officer, another charge that removes him from employment because he can't be a police officer.

And let's talk about going back to that list again. We can't just, if he's on this other list, radio, get him through the list again.

he he can still do his job as an officer correct the prop listen it's it's certainly possible but the court is not going to look favorably when we do those well the prosecutor's office could tell i mean i have this in other places and the most recent being ocean county um where the prosecutor's office told the town you are not to send that officer on it was a sergeant you're not the senate officer on any car stops any criminal investigations they're not to be involved at all Correct. So they could direct that to the chief? That happens. I mean, I get hypotheticals, but can that happen? Of course.

And let me just say for the council's sake, in larger communities and larger towns, there's ways to take officers that have the same situation, maybe put them in other departments that do not write tickets, are not involved. In a small town like us, every officer's out there writing tickets. It becomes difficult. We can't have, look, we're responsible for the tax dollars at the end of the day also, right? We can't have an employee that can't do a good job. We just can't have that.

So you're saying that puts the chief in a predicament, whereas what would he do with the individual if he's not licensed?

Well, licensing is out. He would be out. He doesn't get his license.

And let me ask about the licenses. You said that goes reviewed every three years?

The license is reviewed every three years.

So if we make any kind of decision, does licensing make an immediate decision? Or is the time period till his next licensing event come up, could be a year and a half, could be two years.

PTC has the authority to request an IA file at any time it deems appropriate. So it could ask for the file at any time. I don't know if that's happened. They could ask it in renewal. I'm not sure when Captain Shashan's license renewal is up.

Right. A time period.

Yeah. I don't know if they can ask for it at any time.

If they have evidence or have a need to want to review it. Right. But say if we keep them, And it's another two and a half years before that puts the chief say and everybody in a predicament where we're paying An officer that really can't do anything.

Right. I think we're getting off the subject, though, about the licensing and the pension. Well, it's all part of it. But it's not, because we're here to make a determination. This council is here to make a determination on the charges that he were filed against him. Not about his licensing, not about his pension, not about any other things. We're here to listen to the charges and then decide on a penalty for those charges. We've heard the charges. They've been presented to us. That's what we're here to make a determination on, nothing else. What happens in the future, no one can tell you. I can't.

No one's going to be able to tell you that. So, Mayor, the last thing that I just want to comment on is if this were to be tabled and there was a motion to alter the recommendation, we couldn't be having this dialogue at next week's meeting without doing a rights notice, correct? We can't engage in that dialogue. So to the extent that there's an idea about adjusting that. Once you have a motion, you're not supposed to be engaged in dialogue, but you certainly could discuss the motion, the motion to amend. But today, you could do that. Use Rice. This is what we expected to take place. You have greater latitude today to discuss that and to discuss the motion that alters things than you will on Wednesday, unless, of course, we re-notice him and I just wanted to bring that point up.

We can't do that in two days, can we? So I understand Mark's point completely. We have the ability to make decisions right now, today. On Wednesday, we would not. We'd have to re-arise him, and he would have a choice to have it open or closed, the same situation we have now. So that delays it a little bit. But meanwhile, we're talking about a gentleman's future. We're talking about our police department. The longer this delays, the longer this is harder for everybody. And I haven't really given the chief, chief, do you have anything you want to add just from the police standpoint of this and how manpower and things work?

Let's just make sure it's appropriate.

She's not involved in this. No, okay. I was just talking about that. All right, so then this is where we are. So I'll go back to what I said initially. Someone can make a motion right now as it stands. Someone can make a motion to table it. Someone can make a motion to change it. You can do those three things right now.

The first question, Mayor, should be, is there a motion on removal? Right. That's what I'm trying to say.

Is there a motion for removal, which is what we're here to talk about?

Seeing none, I guess we can now ask for a motion. Is there a motion on an amendment of a penalty?

All right. Is there a motion on amendment of the penalty? I'll make that motion. OK. But you have to say what it is. I'd like to make the motion to amend the penalty. Is that the correct phrase?

Mm-hmm.

Demotion to lieutenant and six months suspension. I'll second that. Okay, take a roll call on that.

Councilman Vinn?

Yes.

Councilman Cruz?

Yes.

Councilman Higg?

Yes.

Councilman, Council, President Ken?

Yes. Councilman Sanchez?

Yes. Yes. Okay, motion passes. That's where we are with this, gentlemen and ladies. Okay, motion to adjourn. Motion. Councilman Bennett. Second. Councilman Cruz, all in favor? Aye. Against?