East Windsor Police Commission
Regular Meeting - June 8, 2005
Minutes
CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
The meeting was called to order at 7:00p.m. by Chairman Sherman. Commissioners Devanney, Sinsigallo, Barton and Simmons were present along with Chief DeMarco.
ADDED AGENDA ITEMS
There were no Added Agenda Items
PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES
Regular Meeting -April 13, 2005
A motion was made by Commissioner Sinsigallo, seconded by Commissioner Simmons to accept the minutes of the regular meeting of April 13, 2005 as presented.
Sinsigallo/Simmons Unanimous
Special Meeting - May 11, 2005
A motion was made by Commissioner Sinsigallo, seconded by Commissioner Simmons to accept the minutes of the Special Meeting of May 11, 2005 as presented.
Sinsigallo/Simmons Unanimous
BUDGET AND EXPENDITURES
A) Police Department - Monthly Billing
A motion was made by Commissioner Sinsigallo, seconded by Commissioner Simmons to approve the East Windsor Police Department monthly billing dated May 4, 2005 in the amount of $8450.05 for the fiscal year 2004/2005
Sinsigallo/Simmons Unanimous
A motion was made by Commissioner Sinsigallo. Seconded by Commissioner Simmons to approve the East Windsor Police Department monthly billing dated June 1, 2005 in the amount of $12505.45 for the fiscal year 2004/2005.
Sinsigallo/Simmons Unanimous
B) Police Department Financial Statement
A motion was made by Commissioner Sinsigallo, seconded by Commissioner Simmons to approve the East Windsor Police Department Financial Statement dated May 4, 2005 for the fiscal year 2004/2005.
Sinsigallo/Simmons Unanimous
A motion was made by Commissioner Sinsigallo, seconded by Commissioner Simmons to approve the East Windsor Police Department Financial Statement dated June 1, 2005 for the Fiscal Year 2004/2005.
Sinsigallo/Simmons Unanimous
C) Police Commission - Monthly Billing
A motion was made by Commissioner Sinsigallo, seconded by Commissioner Simmons to approve the East Windsor Police Commission Monthly Billing for the fiscal year 2004/2005 dated April 30, 2005 in the amount of $169.76
Sinsigallo/Simmons Unanimous
A motion was made by Commissioner Sinsigallo, seconded by Commissioner Simmons to approve the East Windsor Police Commission Monthly Billing for the fiscal year 2004/2005 dated May 31, 2005 in the amount of $248.04.
Sinsigallo/Simmons Unanimous
D) Police Commission Financial Statement
A motion was made by Commissioner Sinsigallo, seconded by Commissioner Simmons to approve the East Windsor Police Commission Financial Statement for the fiscal year 2004/2005 dated April 30, 2005 as presented.
Sinsigallo/Simmons Unanimous
A motion was made by Commissioner Sinsigallo, seconded by Commissioner Simmons to approve the East Windsor Police Commission Financial Statement for the fiscal year 2004/2005 dated May 31, 2005 as presented.
Sinsigallo/Simmons Unanimous
E) Animal Control Monthly Billing
A motion was made by Commissioner Sinsigallo, seconded by Commissioner Simmons to approve the East Windsor Animal Control Monthly Billing for the fiscal year 2004/2005 dated May 4, 2005 in the amount of $218.22
Sinsigallo/Simmons Unanimous
A motion was made by Commissioner Sinsigallo, seconded by Commissioner Simmons to approve the East Windsor Animal Control monthly billing for the fiscal year 2004/2005 dated May 19, 2005 in the amount of $410.07
Sinsigallo/Simmons Unanimous
F) Animal Control - Financial Statement
A motion was made by Commissioner Sinsgallo, seconded by Commissioner Simmons to approve the East Windsor Animal Control Financial Statement for the fiscal year 2004/2005 dated May 4, 2005 as presented.
Sinsigallo/Simmons Unanimous
A motion was made by Commissioner Sinsigallo, seconded by Commissioner Simmons to approve the East Windsor Animal Control Financial Statement for the fiscal year 2004/2005 dated June 1, 2005 as presented.
Sinsigallo/Simmons Unanimous
G) Legal Billing
The legal billing from the firm of Penny, Botticello, OBrien & Higgins, PC for the months of May and June, 2005 was reviewed by all commissioners present. No action necessary.
PUBLIC INPUT
Gunther Warren of 63 North Main Street, Warehouse Point, CT read a letter he had written to the First Selectman concerning the Police Explorer Post (copy of letter attached). His Mother, who is a parent advisor, also expressed her concerns regarding the Explorer Post and how they feel that it is falling apart due to the lack of participation by the East Windsor Police Department. Mrs. Warren also stated that it was a great bunch of kids who were really interested in keeping the post going, doing things to help the community out and at the same time learning about Police procedures.
Chief DeMarco responded to Mrs. Warrens comments by stating that the Police liaison to the Explorer Post is a strictly voluntary position and that the officers that have volunteered have had to give it up due to various reasons. He also mentioned that he had a meeting with Mr. Warren on Thursday morning to discuss this exact issue and what can be done to salvage the program.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A) Police Station Renovations update
At the present time, there is no air conditioning in the Police Station. The issue of no air conditioning has been addressed in a letter to the First Selectman and as a result the bids for the air conditioning will be opened on Monday, June 13th and a decision will be made as to who will get the job. Hopefully, it will not take too long for the air conditioning to be installed as the heat in the offices, records room and lock up is becoming too intense for comfort and safety.
The Enfield Police Department has offered the use of their lock-up area and if it becomes absolutely necessary the offer will be accepted; although this in fact will cause some problems, i.e. providing food and medical assistance if required.
Mark Severtz has been named Clerk of the Works for the renovations project and when any additional information is forthcoming it will be brought to the attention of the Commission.
B) Alarm Reduction Ordinance
The Alarm Reduction Ordinance was passed by the Town and we are in the processing of completing the paperwork necessary to implement this ordinance, i.e. letters, permits, etc.
The mailings may have to wait until after July 1st due to the fact that there is no money in the current budget to cover this expense. It was a suggestion of Commissioner Devanney that the Chief contact the First Selectman for seed money to get this ordinance going.
C) Cross-Walks - Broad Brook School
A follow-up letter was sent to Len Norton requesting proper signage on the North and Southbound lanes on Rye Street indicating the cross-walks and he was asked to report back to the Commission at the June 8th meeting.
As of this date, the signage has been placed but it is too far off the road to be of any use and Mr. Norton will be contacted once again regarding the signage.
When any additional information is forthcoming it will be brought to the attention of the commission.
TRAFFIC AUTHORITY
05-0001 - Margaret Drive - request for speed limit sign
This request has been turned over to the Police Department who will request the proper speed limit sign from the Department of Transportation.
05-0002 - Scott Avenue - Children at Play sign and speed limit change
Off. Ludenmann investigated this complaint and reported back to the Chief that he feels that the speed limit of 25 mph is appropriate, but that a Children at Play sign would be a good idea.
A letter will be forwarded to the Highway Department requesting the placement of a Children at Play sign.
PUBLIC INPUT #2 (Comments only - no discussion)
There was no additional public input.
NEW BUSINESS
A) Circle of Merit Award Nomination
Commissioner Sinsigallo presented to the Board her nomination for the Circle of Merit Award. The nomination will be reviewed and further action on the nomination will be taken at the July 13, 2005 meeting of the Police Commission.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Personnel Matters
Chairman Sherman opened the Executive Session with the statement that the Fact finding or hearing portion of the session would be held in open session, the deliberations would be among the commission members only and that would be in closed session, and finally the decision would be heard in open session. Chairman Sherman also stated that for the ease of transcription, the Hearing part of the session would be recorded.
A) Hearing (open)
The following people were present to provide testimony during the Hearing
Chief Edward DeMarco
Sgt. Drolett
Atty. Aaron Brown (representing Sgt. Drolett)
The Chief spoke first stating that we are here due to an internal investigation conducted by Sgt. Michael Hannaford regarding an anonymous letter that was sent in February. At the conclusion of the investigation, it was determined that there were several violations of the Rules and Regulations and Departmental Directives of the East Windsor Police Department. The charges against Sgt. Drolett are as follows:
East Windsor Police Manual:
Sec. 4.04.09 Officers shall report to their commanding officer all matters coming to their attention of police interest, immediately.
Sec. 5.01.01 It shall be the responsibility of the position of Captain, Lieutenant and Sergeant to see that the departments objectives are carried out in accordance with this manual, current job description, Chain of Command and department orders to ensure the efficient operation of the department at all times.
Sec. 11.00.00 Reports/Records/Department Information - Relating to the fact that information coming to the attention of the department is of a confidential nature, employees will not divulge the content of reports or records or other department information except as authorized.
Sec. 14.01.00 Conduct unbecoming - Any violation of Rules, Regulations, Policies, procedures, Directives, General Orders, Special Orders, Memorandums or any lawful order, or any act which tends to undermine the good order, efficiency and discipline of the department of which reflects discredit upon the department or any member, thereof, shall constitute Conduct Unbecoming.
Sec. 14.07.00 Employees will not make statements or address the pubic on behalf of the department for publication or broadcast concerning the plans, policies or administration of the department unless authorized by the Office of the Chief of Police or his designee.
Departmental Operational Directives
Chap. 26 Disciplinary Procedures, section 04: Harassment - Specifically related to Libel - A written or verbal statement of another that would give an unfavorable impression of another person.
Slander - A false report maliciously uttered and tending to injure the reputation of another.
Rumor - Unauthenticated statements about another employee or person,
Chapter 1 Law Enforcement Role and Authority, section 9: Police Code of Ethics - With regard to Police Code of Ethics, second paragraph, Whatever I see or hear of a confidential nature or that is confided in me in my official capacity will be kept ever secret unless revelation is necessary in the performance of my duty.
Departmental Memorandum
Internal E-Mail distributed to all members of this department by Chief DeMarco, dated 9/16/2004, with regards to Rumors and Morale.
Internal E- Mail distributed to all employees of this department, by Chief DeMarco, dated 9/16/2004 with regards to Chain of Command and Confidentiality.
In essence it comes down to an anonymous letter that was sent to four (4) members of the Police Commission, First Selectman and Journal Inquirer highlighting five (5) allegations that the letter stated that they wanted the East Windsor Police Commission to be aware of. Stated that shifts being worked with no supervisors or experienced officers indicating that some officers are not required to work their shift alleging what appears to be suggestive favoritism to those officers receiving leave time, the suggestion that some people are sent all over the country to receive training while others receive only the minimal and important training is delayed. The purchase of vehicles assigned to the Chief and the Detective, the alleged options contained within the vehicles which the writer alleges causing insufficient
monies for other patrol vehicles. Allegations that personnel of this department are being deployed to covered for one person, that person being the Detective indicating that this person was not doing their job and would have been fired anyplace else; allegations of a Golden Circle
where the writer states that certain employees are being shown special favoritism while others are being used as scape goats with the writer concluding that this specific area or issue is one which affects morale. The investigation occurred and ultimately it resulted in the finding of substantiation and admission by Sgt. Drolett that he did in fact author this letter. During the process he allowed other officers to be interviewed as potential writers of this and in fact they were interviewed. During his own interview he requested Garrity, which in essence is a requirement when an incident would go criminal and not in this particular case and also requested that he be ordered to answer questions as opposed to cooperating with the investigation but ultimately in the end he did admit to writing this Now part of his statement he states that he wants to bring public scrutiny and in his own statement and a lot of the information in there is full of mis-truths and misinformation and
in fact one of the allegations is extremely offensive to one of the employees who works in this building and we have to remember that there is a victim here. Detective Carl is highlighted in one of these and in fact advocated for his termination on facts and circumstances gained by Sgt. Drolett who in fact is a supervisor in this department and should be held to a higher standard of his actions. During his statement he claims he was off duty at the time and acting as a resident and not a police officer. Now I can give you an example that we do have policy that explains we are police officers 24 hours a day and cannot choose when and when not to be police officers. If I decided tomorrow night that I wanted to go and hang out with the Hells Angels who are known to be felons and criminals I could say that I wanted to do this as a resident of my town and not as a police officer, I dont have the choice to choose in that particular situation. The very information
that Sgt. Drolett gathered was within his capacity as a police sergeant, information that he gained from records when he claims only two warrants were completed, information as a fleet manager and as a resident he wouldnt have access to that information and he is a police officer all the time. A lot of these things and I have talked to the chain of command and Sgt. Drolett is aware of the chain of command on several occasions we have discussed the chain of command at one point he was upset with me as I made a couple of comments that I wanted officers to be acknowledged in writing for their good work and I said that was not occurring. Sgt. Drolett came to me upset and said that that was in fact occurring but they were following the chain of command, that they were submitting them to the Captain and he is well aware of the chain of command. Also at a supervisors meeting attended by multiple sergeants, the Captain and myself, he explained that the person who wrote
this letter because of the topic of the meeting his actions were wrong especially during the time of budget initiation trying to garner support from the public and the person who was doing this was very wrong and he did that in the presence of a bunch of people. In no way, in his own statement he states that he believes he discussed some of this issues but he could not remember which one of these issues he discussed; but I can tell you now he hasnt discussed any of them with the Captain or myself hence not following the chain of command. Again he is a sergeant and should be held to a higher standard hes fully aware of the chain of command, I attempted to handle this at my level, prior to it coming to the Police Commission and in a meeting he told me I was violating his civil rights and interfering with his personal time, he refused to cooperate or answer questions without being given a direct order. I attempted to ask a few questions, to handle it at my level and
when he said that it had to come to the Police Commission. I submitted to you Sgt. Hannafords independent investigation where the violation was substantiated for the charges that Ive listed to you, Ive also given you copies of the E-Mail memorandums that were issued in September I just think that we have to keep in mind that as supervisors we have to report known situations, he did not report those situations, he put twists to those situations, wanted to bring negative public scrutiny to the Police Department, myself and other members of this agency via the newspaper. First Selectmans office and only 4 members of the Police Commission not five. So I would implore you to please remember that there are victims in this, one of them being Det. Matt Carl and his actions are very detrimental to the moral and good workings of this police department, we work by a chain of command, hes fully aware of that and I think he should be held accountable.
Chairman Sherman: You have heard the charges stated, do you have anything to speak against, for or have anything to say in response to this?
Atty. Brown: I will be speaking for Sgt. Drolett. I am Atty. Aaron Brown and I represent the Police Department union. The first thing that I am going to do is to hand you a Ct. Supreme Court Case which is relevant to the issue before you. That case involves a police officer from the Town of Rocky Hill who spoke out against operations of the Rocky Hill Police Department back in 1994. Had similarly made claims, as Mr Drolett here has done, with regards some concerns he had regarding operations in the Police Department. In conversations he had with private citizens regarding those operations. As a result, of raising these concerns publicly the police officer was sued by the police chief, so the police officer filed a counter claim against the police chief and it turns out that the police
chief claims against the officer were dismissed the police officer won a verdict of $370,000 against the town. If any type of disciplinary action or action of any kind which is detrimental to Mr. Drolett is taken against him because of what he did here, you are going to get the same type of claim and youre probably going to get the same type of result. Mr. Drolett has first amendment rights to speak out on matters of public concern thats what this case says and thats what Mr. Drolett did here. He spoke out about the operations of the department and the favoritism which occurs in this department and it may have ruffled some feathers, upset some people or created victims as the Chief says but in any event he had a first amendment right to do it and that first amendment right is not only protected by Federal statute, it is protected by Connecticut statute and he had a right to speak out about it. The Town may claim or the Chief may claim that what he spoke out
about was something that was strictly related to his work as a police officer. Thats not true all the issues that he spoke about were issues related to matters of public concern and thats what this case Schnabel vs. Tyler talks about, issues related to matters of public concern. Every issue thats been raised by Mr. Drolett is a matter of public concern, that was appropriately brought before the public and needed to be addressed by this Commission or the First Selectman or the public itself. I urge you to take a look at this case, to review it and to understand what the law is before you take any action. Mr. Drolett has not done anything in violation of the Rules and Regulations of the East Windsor Police Department he has sought to create a better police department by notifying you all the public servants responsible for the police department in this town of whats going on there. I urge to investigate his complaints and make a determination for
yourself as to whether or not what he has said is true and accurate and needs a remedy.
Chairman Sherman: Do any of the other commissioners have anything to ask?
Commissioner Barton: First of all your preamble sounded more like intimidation than defense, but getting into the defense - in terms of appropriately bringing matters before the public I guess I am curious about the anonymous nature of this letter and was this other one was anonymous.
Atty. Brown: I can tell you why it happened anonymously this time. Mr. Drolett has spoken out on 2 previous occasions during his career as a police officer. He can tell you what the retaliation was that he received but on the first occasion he spoke out in 1986, he attempted to speak out in 1986 and was told that he would not be able to speak out because he was a police officer. Later on in his career he speak out again and as a result of speaking out on second occasion publicly and by putting a name to it he was retaliated against by having his shift changed. So on this third occasion where he felt it was a matter of public importance and needed to speak out he made sure that he took the opportunity to speak out and did it anonymously so he wouldnt be retaliated against as he had been in the past,
so that is the reason.
Commissioner Barton: And you think that s appropriate?
Atty. Brown: I am not commenting on the appropriateness of this , I can tell you this . .
Commissioner Barton: You said he appropriately brought before the public this information
Atty. Brown: He appropriately brought the information before the public - absolutely
Chief DeMarco: I think if I can make a comment - I understand his concern but that does not negate his requirement to take action as a sergeant in this police department, his right to free speech, should understand that he is a sergeant and hes clearly obligated by department policy that when he observes an inefficiency he should report it immediately. Id like to know what corrective action he took as he encountered each of these violation, because I know he didnt talk to my Captain I know he didnt talk to me, and as I said before failure to follow the chain of command has nothing to do with his free speech. Theres an appropriate procedure to take in my opinion and he once made a comment to me that as long as he tells the truth he can say whatever he wants.
Commissioner Simmons: I have a question - I read your memo dated 9/16/04 which you sent to everybody. It says here, and Ill read part of it, it deals with having your open door policy and after I read it, Ill ask you a question relating to it: I hope that everyone knows, this is you speaking, that I will address every issue that you may have if you have a concern or want to address a problem that you come to me and I will work very hard to fix it. I may not see everything and therefore encourage you to come forward. How many times, you mentioned it before but I would like clarification, did Sgt. Drolett come to you with these concerns in this letter?
Chief DeMarco: Never
Commissioner Simmons: Never once?
Chief DeMarco: Never
Commission Simmons: Never walked in and said hey theres a problem with training, theres a problem with preferential treatment?
Chief DeMarco: No
Commissioner Simmons: I also looked over this case document, its a lengthy document and it seems to deal with Tyler being ordered to guard a prisoner without being allowed to wear his gun, handcuffs, nightstick or radio. Is that part of this suit, or is this part of this complaint?
Atty. Brown: Which complaint? Tyler vs. Schnabel complaint.
Commissioner Simmons: Yeah, Im reading it from the back page.
Atty Brown: I think that the case speaks for itself. I dont know exactly what the last paragraph deals with.
Commissioner Simmons: Im asking you if its part of, if this case or if this complaint, deals with these issues?
Atty. Brown: Ill tell you what the case deals with relative to Mr. Lay and thats what I spoke about at the beginning.
Commissioner Simmons: So were just looking at, were just picking and choosing.
Atty. Brown: Look, I would tell the Commission that you have your own counsel and I think youre going to have to review it with your counsel.
Commissioner Simmons: I sure will, this is lengthy, and I was just briefly looking it over.
Atty Brown: With regards to the issues raised about Mr. Drolett bringing these issues to the Police hierarchy in October of 04 Mr. Drolett notified the Police hierarchy regarding the use of finger print kits and evidence gathering kits, in October of 04 he requested that he be sent to IBTM Police laser instructor class in Jacksonville, FL., he had notified Capt. Duffy in February of 05 that officers were consistently writing up that the scanner were not working, so hes raised concerns regarding the operations of the department through the appropriate channels and as far as he was concerned that wasnt working.
Commissioner Barton: Then why not these?
Atty Brown: Sorry - what?
Commissioner Barton: Then why not these?
Atty Brown: Cause he probably believes, and I cannot speak for him Im sure he can answer it, he probably believed that if those issues were not being taken care of by the hierarchy then maybe he needed to go beyond the hierarchy as a resident of this town and notify the police commission.
Commissioner Devanney: Was there a reason, budgetary or otherwise, why Sgt. Drolett was not allowed to go to that particular class? Did we know about it?
Chief DeMarco: Im going to be plain and simple here. This sounds like hes crying over spilled milk and lashing out. I can tell you now that classes arent even decided by me, I have a training officer that determines the budget and the need for the department I dont even know why - that question would have to be referred to Sgt. Hannaford I dont know what the issue with the finger print kit is, weve bought a ton of equipment as far as the scanners there was a decision as the fleet manager between the Captain, myself and Jay that the scanners were obsolete and being removed from service if I remember that correctly. Were comparing apples to oranges, you can put any twist to this that you want, but never did he come to here and state his claims of favoritism, never did he sit in front of me and discuss it,
he can put any twist on it he wants but the facts remain the same.
Commissioner Barton: Sgt. Drolett, do you ever receive any anonymous complaints?
Sgt. Drolett: Yes I do.
Commissioner Barton: How do you handle those?
Sgt. Drolett: I look into them, determine on merit what should be done next.
Commissioner Barton: An anonymous complaints, without any facts, without anybody to respond to, you would conduct an investigation and rectify the situation?
Sgt. Drolett: Each one is dealt with differently, it depends on exactly what it is.
Commission Barton: In the case of this particular letter, given that it is anonymous and sent to some members of the Police Commission, did you think at that time that you were bringing issues to the Police Commission that the Police Commission should investigate and take action on? Was that your purpose?
Sgt. Drolett: Yes
Commission Barton: How about the timing of the letter - was there anything significant or not significant about that? I mean some of these things went on for a long time, I dont know for how long the cars have been on the road, but it seems that those vehicles have been on the road for some time. Why wasnt the Police Commission notified, if this is some way of notifying, about these cars, cd players and so forth when they arrived?
Atty Brown: By whom?
Commissioner Barton: By Sgt. Drolett
Atty. Brown: I dont think it is his obligation to notify the commission when they arrive. Its the Chiefs obligation to notify the Police commission when they arrive. The cars
Commissioner Barton: No, no his complaint. He is notifying the Police Commission allegedly about some misconduct here my question is why didnt he notify the police commission when the misconduct happened - instead of months or years later?
Atty. Brown: That hasnt been determined as misconduct. He was just bringing to your attention something that you may not have known.
Commissioner Barton: I understand that and we did not know - my question is why the delay?
Chairman Sherman: The next time you wish to request a recess - it must go through me - it is my meeting.
Sgt. Drolett: With request to the timing and bringing the specific issue to the Police Commission opposed to through the chain of command or something else many of those issues were clear to the chain of command because when they made decisions many of those issues were there. It was already them that made them and many of my concerns addressing these were exchanged back and forth in e-mails regarding the cost of the different things such as radio installations and the money for that and all that. So those concerns were clearly addressed in writing to the administration. As far as why those feeling were expressed in the letter, a lot of those feeling were addressed as a tax payer where my money is going where my resources as a taxpayer is spent. Im going - we voted on a 9% tax increase and were
going to vote on an 8% tax increase tomorrow - not every issue here is just as a police officer. A lot of these issues effect me as whether my kids get new school books, or whether the police department gets a new laser which just sits around because they havent trained the patrol officers with. The laser item was sent to the Captain with the request that somebody be trained in the it I requested myself - anybody specifically. The Chief stood in the hallway when I was in the Captains office - we discussed it we discussed the fact that there was an officer set to train people in laser and that he wasnt doing it. The Chief made the statement that that officer would be doing he and he would be in service. The officers still havent been trained in the laser. Now to me that it is a bad use of resources - it just seems to me that we could take the time and effort to train people in that - to slow people down so that when my kids are driving
the streets as opposed to other things. That is a personal concern as a family man, as a father with kids in town who drive these roads my wife that drive these roads and everything else.
Commissioner Barton: Right, but that does not explain the issue of the complaining about the cd players, the complaining about the detective, the complaining about the golden circle and it still does not explain in my view the timing. If you were concerned about that, when did you notify the police department administration?
Sgt. Drolett: Actually these memos probably go back, I have assorted e-mails which go back over two years. Its timing and Im sure you have the same things with yourself. Sometimes a little thing happens to you, then another little thing happens to you and another little things happens to you and over time things build up and they start to bother you and it really become, one little thing here and one little thing there is not significant, but all these little things they do add up. As far as notifying the Chief I stood in his office and discussed problems involving the detective division and at that time I actually suggested that they needed to assign a supervisor to the detective division and I offered to be that supervisor. I didnt have to be that supervisor, the Chief actually
followed through with that a short time later and he made the determination to alternate two other sergeants in there. I did meet with the Chief to discuss these items.
Commissioner Barton: Excuse me, I might get confused if you keep taking me off of my subject.
Sgt. Drolett: Im sorry.
Commissioner Barton: You made specific allegations here in an anonymous letter you said you did it because it was the appropriate way to bring it before the public and that you wanted to notify the police commission about things that went on - the problem Im having here is that these allegations were made far after they were known to you and were not known to us. Im concerned about that delay and Im also concerned that we received this letter, I believe, on the very day we were conducting a performance evaluation on the Chief.
Sgt. Drolett: Well, that ok. Sitting here I have the feeling that this is mostly retaliation because the letter came on that day. Like I said many things built over a period of time and it got to the point where it just - where I just needed to express my opinion.
Commissioner Barton: When the two cars came in did you bring that up to the chief, about the money spent on the car?
Sgt Drolett: I honestly dont care about remote starters or cds in cars what I care about is when I go with a purchase order to get a defribulator for a cruiser, or radars for a cruiser, or other equipment for a cruiser and Im told that we have a problem here because theres not enough money and its going to have to be worked out. Now I can sit back and let that issue be worked out. But then I have to continually submit purchase orders for three months and I dont actually get these purchase orders signed until after Im served with a notice that Im being investigated for this letter.
Chief DeMarco: We could call Maria to clear this up, because that is a total misstatement right there.
Sgt. Drolett: I have no problem with that, Sgt. Smith was also in on the conversation.
Commissioner Barton: Are you aware that Police commission policy and police commission past practice that complaints are to be identified and not an anonymous letter.
Sgt. Drolett: Im not aware of that.
Commissioner Sinsigallo: I have a very big concern with your position as Sergeant. What do you firmly believe your responsibilities are as a sergeant.
Sgt. Drolett: To see that my patrolman and the rest of the employees there have the best opportunity to properly do their job and protect the public.
Commissioner Sinsigallo; And?
Sgt. Drolett: Im not exactly sure what youre looking for.
Commissioner Sinsigallo: I believe you should set a standard of conduct and professionalism that need to respect your superiors and to bring to their attention things that are bothering you. I didnt appreciate receiving an anonymous letter coming from a police department member with these kinds of implications against other people and they spent a lot of time looking into it to rectify the situation. I believe some people were embarrassed and I dont think we should, I think we should keep our standards high enough so that we respect others not criticize and this business that you are not a police officer 24 hours a day is not a true statement. Yes you live in town, yes you are a tax payer but above all you are a police officer and you are that officer 24 hours a day.
Atty. Brown: We have not suggested he is not a police officer.
Commissioner Sinsigallo: He has made statements in these documents
Atty. Brown: He made statement that he was speaking out a private citizen.
Commissioner Sinsigallo: He is not.
Atty. Brown: o.k.
Commissioner Sinsigallo: Thats all I have to say.
Chief DeMarco: I just have a question to ask - if you felt it was so important as a tax payer to ask questions about the golden circle and people being praised for the simplest things I dont see where that relates as a tax payer but my question is why did you talk negatively about the person who wrote the letter especially at budget time amongst multiple supervisors if these were so important to you, you yourself degraded the person who wrote the letter in a supervisors meeting.
Sgt. Drolett: First of all, I can surgically separate my feelings and opinions as a tax payer, a father, a family man, somebody who lives in town from my opinions as a police officer. While Im a police officer representing the Town of East Windsor wearing this uniform I fly the flag as high as I can I preach the police department, I say good things about the police department, I say good things about the members of the police department, and when someone calls up pissing and moaning because they cant get an officer to answer a call or something like that I still say good things about the officer and defend the police department while Im working there.
Chief DeMarco: But you let those officers be interviewed as possible suspects of this?
Sgt. Drolett: Actually, I wasnt aware of that until I was standing outside in the hall with Officer Browning, and Officer Browning who was my union rep at that time made a comment about somebody else. That was the first knowledge that I had that somebody else was being interviewed about it. And the first time I was asked directly and specifically in the position of why I did that, I responded, I didnt blame anybody else.
Chief DeMarco: So as a concerned taxpayer and a police officer you went into the records division to garner information on an employee you dont supervise to make the claim that that person made one arrest warrant per year and that they would be fired anywhere else.
Sgt. Drolett: Actually, this goes back to the conversation you and I had in your office where secifically -
Commissioner Barton: Can I interrupt for a minute please - Im a little uncomfortable with the discussion between these two. I mean this is a hearing I dont want you to think that were grilling you, obviously were asking questions. Weve been presented with charges and were going to need to ask questions of you and get your side of the story obviously, you can make any statement you want were also going to need this other information, evidence from the Chief, but I just really dont want you guys to get into discussion here just for us to listen to. The information that youre posing I hope that youre presenting to us, to substantiate your charges and if you would just respond to the board, I would just appreciate that too.
Sgt. Drolett: Ok the only reason I came across that information is that it was directly related to the conversation that we had and whether or not an arrest warrant was actually done on a specific case.
Chairman Sherman: If you were John Q. citizen on the street, would you have this information?
Sgt. Drolett: I believe it would be available to the public, as public information.
Chairman Sherman: So what youre saying is that anyone in the public can go in and find out how many arrest warrants that any one individual has made out.
Sgt. Drolett: I believe the FOI laws are very liberal and people can find out almost any type of information that they want which would include that.
Commissioner Simmons: Not all of it. You see there are a lot of closed cases in there, there are sealed by judges, in the records division is a sacred place.
Sgt. Drolett: Well theres also, yeah you would be able to find out about specific cases, and a lot of the general information.
Commissioner Simmons: So the questions is that the general public can go in and peruse files is just not true.
Sgt. Drolett: Peruse files - no - but obtain information yes.
Chairman Sherman: But there is an appropriate way to do it - they would have to go to judge, the judge would give you paperwork to say that you need to see such and such a case, but just arbitrarily you cannot.
Sgt. Drolett: There wasnt a specific case looked at, it was just basically statistics and numbers.
Chairman Sherman: Then how did you know it was only one?
Sgt. Drolett: One or two - all I was looking at was specific names. I was looking for one specific one. The fact that
Commissioner Sinsigallo: For what purpose
Sgt. Drolett: It was a specific warrant that hadnt been done that the Chief and I were discussing and he had asked me if I knew that the warrant hadnt been done; and a second case came up and I went to see if in fact a warrant had been made out for that
Commissioner Devanney: I have a question for Jay. Jay, could you tell me honestly that the timing of this letter had nothing to do with what we were doing that night. Was it just a coincidence or - Im just curious as to why youre doing it that night and the letter came the same day or the day before - was the letter just put in the mail - was it just a coincidence or was it intentional to make a point that day.
Sgt. Drolett: I was aware of the meeting and the intent of the meeting and it was probably, like I said before a lot of little things added up there;s a lot of little pieces - if that meeting hadnt existed would I have sent the letter - I dont think so. Would that have changed the timing drastically. Since it thats type of case I cant say - I believe that either way I would have sent the letter and the fact that it showed up before that meeting I had no remorse for and I had no problem with it doing that either.
Commissioner Devanney: One of your comments was that you didnt have enough of faith in the police commission to come to us, but you could have come to us, asked for a time to be heard and we very much would have listened to some of your questions that you had rather than going anonymously, you felt you couldnt go to the Chief, we definitely would have listened to what you had to say. I wish you had gone in that direction and put a little more confidence in us - but
Sgt. Drolett: I thought about that but unfortunately as Commissioner Sinsigallo was on the board at that time, the last time I put myself on the agenda to speak about an item - that item was the computers - which was well received by the police commission that was the first step in getting us where we are today. Unfortunately, Chief Laufer at that time was not as appreciative and put me on midnights with Tuesdays and Wednesdays off for six months. I believe you will recall that situation and I went to the Police Commission for help on that. I really didnt want to face any additional retaliation.
Commissioner Barton: Do you think you have some obligation to see if there was going to be retaliation, rather than to assume such because the retaliation that you speak about happened long before the terms of these fellas so do they own that retaliation from ten or twelve years ago or do they get the opportunity not to retaliate.
Sgt. Drolett: I just tend to learn from previous experiences and I felt that was the best way to go at the time.
Commissioner Simmons: Sgt., the anonymous letter was a little bit underhanded and insulting the way I got it. No names, no nothing, we dont know whats going on. Prior to the letter being sent, just answer this question, why didnt you come in we have it says right her public input. Be a public person, you could come in here and I would have a lot more respect if you came in here and articulated. I would have filed a complaint about the chief not following his own directives what I here read earlier, it seems to me he said I hope everyone knows I will address every issue that you may have. This is 2004 you guys, its addressed to you. I mean, Id be knocking on his door if I were you saying, here look and if he doesnt follow your advice, come and sit here, write a letter, complain that he doesnt follow
his own directive and we would be investigating him instead of you.
Sgt. Drolett: The one time I did try to come in front of the police commission, I came in civilian clothes, on my own time, and did actually speak in public session and then Commissioner Kay Rosenfeld informed me that I was in fact a police officer, everyone knew me as a police officer and in fact everything I said would be considered as a police officer. Commissioner Sinsigallo said just a little while ago that Im a police officer 24/7 and that eliminates any concept whatsoever of me speaking as a free citizen.
Commissioner Devanney: I would have liked to have seen something as a police officer in your uniform. We have a different board now, different commissioner now and I think we would have listened to you and taken at least serious enough to look into everything and make sure that things were done properly.
Sgt. Drolett: I honestly did consider that but I figured that without questions would be the end of my career. I did not honestly feel that I would have a very good working environment afterwards. Right now, I dont feel that I have a great future to look forward to - and I just had a lot of things that bothered me, I wanted to express them and get on with my life. I told the Chief before because about every six weeks I would talk to him. I would go in blow off some steam tell him everything that was on my mind and then Im, happy and relaxed for another 4 to 6 weeks until everything starts to build up again. I would vent on a regular basis, I was getting the feeling that my venting there wasnt helping just some things built up on my mind, I had some concerns some issues that I didnt feel were
being addressed I really did feel that I had addressed them personally through the chain of command and appropriately and I just wanted to get them off my mind and you know once I got them off my mind, quite frankly, I could have pushed those letters to the trash I mean I just felt better knowing that I cleared my mind, expressed my opinions and my views.
Chairman Sherman: But why one letter to the newspaper, if you had kept it in house wouldnt it have been better, why to the newspaper?
Sgt. Drolett: You know, Commissioner Sherman, youre right there. I think, in retrospect I wish I had kept it to the commission
Commissioner Simmons: I notice here theres also a specific order about communicating with the press - thats a separate issue here from the charges.
Sgt. Drolett: Theres another thing too, several officers other than myself, and we can bring them up here, recently there was even one other sergeant who had a conversation with the police commissioners and later ended up speaking with the chief. They just dont necessarily feel that they can speak with the police commissioners freely.
Commissioner Barton: Why is that?
Commissioner Devanney: Do you mean one on one, or all of us.
Sgt. Drolett: I was actually thinking more one on one as far as coming and speaking to the Police Commission as a whole group. As a matter of fact, there was one officer that specifically stated to me that he would like to come before the police commission and speak his opinions. I dont want to put that officer in a bad position, put him on the spot, I may talk to him later, if you guys want to talk to him to see if it can be arranged. There is a general feeling that we do not have that freedom or ability.
Commissioner Devanney: Its not the one you want, to state your problems, but I would hope that any officer or anyone working down there would feel free to come and talk to the commission - I really would hope that would solve some of the problems if nothing else will.
Sgt. Drolett: Ive been to Commissioner Sinsigallos house before. We dont really speak about police items and if we do they are very vague, and even if I should run into your husband (and Im just using this as an example because he is a politician) at Dunkin Donuts periodically, I avoid speaking about anything to do with the police department because I dont really feel that I have the ability to speak freely.
Commissioner Barton: Chief, more specifically about the charges, if we could boil this down are your charges that the sergeant had some issues that he did not bring to you, is that one of the charges?
Chief DeMarco: No its quite clear that he didnt follow chain of command.
Commissioner Barton: Thats what Im asking - he didnt follow chain of command?
Chief DeMarco: The way it normally works, he goes to the Captain and spells out the situation. And as I sit here now, Commissioner Barton, I just listened to his explanation about no. 4 about the warrant, and that it was specific to a warrant him and I had discussed and yet I dont see that wording in no. 4 at all. So, its different now, so the charges are clear and its not a matter of achieving a story. He didnt follow the chain of command by saying this is an issue and it needs to be fixed.
Commissioner Barton: That was my question
Chief DeMarco: And Mark talks about the memorandum. You will get an answer, you may not always like it, the scanners being one of them. We decided as the scanners break, we are not purchasing them again but phasing them out as we are getting a new radio system. You might not like that but it is addressed.
Commissioner Barton: So thats one aspect of this.
Chief DeMarco: Yup
Commissioner Barton: Is another one the issue of libel?
Chief DeMarco: Thats what we have to keep focused on. As a concerned taxpayer and a police sergeant, thats what Ive been hearing for the last hour - and this is a supervisor that is not having any command authority over the employee were discussing, he should have went to the Captain who is his immediate supervisor, yes I did put supervision in that detective division, but not for the purpose of having to supervise the employee but for the purpose of case load and work management and things that were occurring outside of out control, court mandated cases- etc. He disparaged this employee, his work product, his work ethic and regardless of the explanation that I heard that it refers to this one simple thing Ive read this letter 5 times right in the last 10 minutes I dont see anything about that. I see how
this as a guy who can spew one arrest warrant per work year and would have been fired elsewhere. Where he sought that information I dont know, but we have a whole other side of the computer which carries our investigative angles, paperwork, etc. So its false.
Commissioner Barton: So thats the nature of the charges, the failure to go through the chain of command, the false statements about other employees
Chief DeMarco: Failure to bring notification to an unfolding situation which he feels needs to be addressed. That is the job of the police sergeant , that is the job of the Lieutenants and the Captain, etc. Ive heard him say things and you know hes come and vented and then afterwards I felt calm, I felt happy, I felt relaxed and then hes fearful of the end of his career. I agree with you Jim there is no retribution, he has the best abilities to work here as any other employee in the building. Today, tomorrow and the next all I want to do is to work well with everyone. Not everybody is going to be happy unfortunately. Thats all folks.
Commissioner Barton: You said a few minutes ago that years ago you were made specifically aware of the fact that you are a police officer 24 hours a day. You were well aware of that but now it seems in defense of this matter you are saying that you were acting as a member of the public and you felt that this was the appropriate way to bring police department issues to the police commission by a member of the public. Is that what youre saying?
Sgt. Drolett: Well, its more like I said before, I cant exactly surgically separate my feelings from what my feelings as a police officer and to my feelings as a member of the public.
Commissioner Barton: But that is your defense here, that you wrote this letter as a member of the public.
Sgt. Drolett: Right.
Commissioner Barton: How can you do that?
Sgt. Drolett: How can I do that? By not signing it or representing myself in any way as a police officer.
Commissioner Barton: ok.
Chairman Sherman: Does anyone else have any questions? Yes sir?
Chief DeMarco: I have been very clear with the delineation of approaching commissioners on their own in violations of the chain of command, if they ask they can go. In front of this board youve had officers since I have been here who have spoken their mind. Officer Rafael Crespo stood here for twenty minutes and vented on this police commission without any fear or retribution. You should not fear simply making this request as is spelled out in the memorandum attached to this package. Anyone can come speak before this police commission including the officer .
Chairman Sherman: Anybody else have any questions? Sergeant?
Sgt. Drolett: Can you give me one second Chairman?
Chairman Sherman: ok
Chairman Sherman: All set? Ok. At this time we are going to conclude the fact finding portion and at this particular point in time I will entertain a motion --
A motion was made by Commissioner Sinsigallo, seconded by Commissioner Simmons to go into the deliberations portion of the Executive Session at 8:28 p.m.
Sinsigallo/Simmons Unanimous
A motion was made by Commissioner Sinsigallo, seconded by Commissioner Simmons to come out of the deliberations portion of Executive Session at 9:18 p.m.
Sinsigallo/Simmons Unanimous
DECISION: Sgt. Drolett, the Police Commission has found you in violation of the East Windsor Police Department Manual Sections 4.04.0o9. 5.01.01, 14.01.01 and DOD Chapter 26 regarding libel. As a result of this decision, you will be suspended for ten (10) working days without pay and placed on a probationary period for six (6) months during which time any further violations may result in further disciplinary action or demotion.
COMMUNICATIONS
There were no additional communications.
MONTHLY REPORTS
A) Chief of Police
There were no additions to the monthly reports.
B) Commission Members
Commissioner Devanney commended the Police Department on the fine job that they did at the canine competition which had been held in East Windsor on June 4th.
ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Commissioner Sinsigallo, seconded by Commissioner Simmons to adjourn the regular meeting of the East Windsor Police Commission at 9:25 p.m.
Sinsigallo/Simmons Unanimous
Respectfully submitted,
Darlene H. Kelly
Recording Secretary
| 
