East Windsor Police Commission
Special Meeting - November 2, 2005
Minutes
CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
The Special Meeting of the East Windsor Police Commission was called to order at 7:00 by Chairman Sherman. Commissioners Barton, Devanney, Simmons and Sinsigallo were present along with Chief DeMarco, Capt. Duffy and Steve Penny, Attorney for the Town of East Windsor.
Chairman Sherman started the meeting off by stating that this meeting is Executive Session on personnel matter. This Executive Session will be held in two separate parts. The first part will be heard in regards to Internal Investigation 05-13-IA of August 12, 2005 for Violations of the Rules and Regulations of the East Windsor Police Department. The first part is open and will be the fact finding portion, the second part is the deliberation portion which is closed which means that everyone with the exception of the Board members and the Town Attorney will be asked to leave the room, the third portion will be the decision portion which will in open session. Once that first section is concluded, then the second section will be heard in regards to Internal Investigation 05-15-IA of October 7, 2005 in
reference to Violations of the Rules and Regulations and Directives of the East Windsor Police Department. Does anybody have any questions at this time?
At this point Sgt. Drolett was requested by the Chairman to call his attorney so that he would have proper representation at this meeting. Sgt. Drolett came back to the meeting after contacting his attorney via cell phone and informed the commission that his attorney had gone to the Town Hall by mistake and was on his way down to the Town Hall Annex.
Chairman Sherman then called a brief recess at approximately 7:05 p.m. to allow Sgt. Drolett’s attorney time to get to the Town Hall Annex from the Town Hall.
Upon the arrival of Sgt. Drolett’s attorney at approximately 7:15 p.m, Chairman Sherman stated that the meeting had already been called to order and would now resume with the hearing portion of the first section which is Internal Investigation 05-13-IA of August 12, 2005 at 7:20 p.m.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
a) Hearing Portion
Chairman Sherman then asked Sgt. Michael Hanaford if he was ready to proceed which was answered in the affirmative. Sgt. Hanaford came to the front of the room and had the following to say:
Sgt. Michael Hannaford, Internal Affairs Investigator for the East Windsor Police Department
I understand you all have a copy of the investigation which I prepared for this meeting here tonight. What happened was that the Chief had directed me to initiate an investigation regarding the conduct of another officer of this department. Detective Carl has assisted me in the internal investigations and the conduct that we were investigating. We were not certain if it was strictly internal but could be external as well. So he accompanied me to this meeting. The meeting occurred at Millpond Village and was with the property manager at the time. We spoke to the Property Manager with regard to the concerns that they had with this officer and during our interview with the property manager she provided us with information regarding a phone conversation she had had with Sgt. Drolett and in the
conversation there were statements made that were derogatory in nature towards the officer we were investigating and now this concerns me for a couple of reasons:
First: comments being made about officers have become an issue with our department and recently been addressed by the Chief
Second: was the fact that this officer had recently received discipline from this police commission with regards to a similar type of incident.
Third: the most important to me was the fact that I was trying to do an impartial investigation of this other officer and I felt that the comments made could certainly question that investigation. I didn’t want the complainant to feel that the comments made were the general feelings of all concerned at the Police Department. I wanted the officer who was being investigated to know that it was being done impartially with no prejudged feelings. So I made the Chief aware of the statements that were made and my intentions to initiate a second internal investigation with regard to those statements. I interviewed Sgt. Drolett with regard to those statements and I presented him with the statements made and I explained to him what the accusations were, the date the phone conversation was to have occurred
which is July 11th and I offered him the opportunity to provide me with an explanation with regards to the statements that he was said to have made.
Sgt. Drolett’s responses to me on the questions asked I concluded to be deceitful, as I indicated in my report, for a number of reasons but most specifically for things such as hesitation, the fact of not recalling, not just a few points but pretty much all points with regard to the phone call whether it was made or not, he wasn’t certain, he could have, he’s not sure, he indicated at one point he could have made a statement if the property manager had said something to him and he was responding to what was said to him. I concluded the interview with Sgt. Drolett I’ve done this interview myself, Detective Carl was not present for this interview Detective Carl, I asked him to review my report on the interview and he concluded the same as I did that it definitely showed deceitfulness on the part of Sgt.
Drolett. Further, other information had come to our attention. On the same date that the property manager had received the phone call from Sgt. Drolett she had also received a phone call of a similar nature from another I consider to be a respectable member of the community and this person had made similar statements about the officer we were investigating and Nancy, the property manager, was accurate in the phone conversation she had with this other individual yet Sgt. Drolett was claiming she must be mistaken with regards to the statements he allegedly made. Now, in my 27 years as a Police Officer in East Windsor and number of investigations I’ve conducted that doesn’t occur. You find that people generally cannot be accurate on one and not the other when they happen at the same time . I did speak to this other member and he was very forthcoming with what he had said, he acknowledged the fact that he had the conversation, the
only things he wasn’t absolutely sure on was the date, but he did say it was the Monday immediately following the officer’s resignation which would have been July the 11th .
A second interview was conducted with Sgt. Drolett and this interview I asked Detective Carl to conduct it. This was done for a couple of reasons: 1) because I do believe he has a little more expertise than I, he’s been an investigator for a number of years himself and he does by virtue of his position do more interviews than I do and I also wanted a second perspective of a person asking the questions. He asked what I would deem to be pretty direct, simple questions pertaining to Sgt. Drolett’s vacation , the day surrounding the date of the phone call, etc. and again it was a lot of I don’t remember, I can’t recall but yet later on in the conversation he would come back to recollect things like such as the question was posed to him did he stop for gas and/or food on the way back from Cape
Cod, he had traveled from Cape Cod on Monday July the 11th (the date in question) to go home to apparently retrieve some items. Initially he could not recall, he wasn’t certain, he possibly could have but later on in his statement he does recollect the fact that while his daughter and her friend were waiting to use a rest room he engaged in conversation with this female over some books and he recollects this because apparently the female, as he puts it, was good looking but yet he still could not remember still if he had something to eat. A simple question as to whether or not he may have paid for his gas by credit card or cash he could not recall. We are not taking about an extended length of time, we’re not talking about years here, we’re only talking about a couple of weeks – maybe 6 – so again this leads me to believe that this is not true. My training experience tells me that this is not truthful. So
we concluded, we explained to Sgt. Drolett that we do not believe that he is being truthful at either of the interviews and that we do believe he made the phone call. He became somewhat agitated and told us to put our cards on the table. Certainly I would have rather resolved this on a much lower level but apparently we couldn’t do that. So that was the end of the interviews with Sgt. Drolett.
In both instances, in both interviews he had chosen another officer within our department to represent him and the representative pretty much just sits there and witnesses what transpires to make sure we don’t violate any of the officer’s rights for these interviews. Prior to the first interview he was provided his “garrity warning” which again relieves him of having anything said in his statements being used against him in a criminal matter and he was also given his right to union representation form, forms which we provide which just signifies that he had chosen to have union representation . Sometime after the second interview, the date is on one of my reports, the officer that had sat in on his behalf as his representative had occasion to have a conversation with Detective Carl and
in the conversation he apologized for having to be there, he said that he wasn’t happy that he was asked to be there, he said that he was uncomfortable, he didn’t like the fact as he termed it Sgt. Drolett was babbling during the interviews. In a conversation I had with him in regards to this he indicated that he could not say specifically himself whether Sgt. Drolett was not truthful yet he did say that in his investigations with outside individuals on crimes he’s investigated, these types of responses that were given by Sgt. Drolett would certainly raise concerns for him and lead him to believe that the person was being untruthful but yet he still didn’t feel comfortable with the fact of Sgt. Drolett being untruthful or not. Still he was concerned and said he was not happy and was willing to explain that to him that he did not appreciate being called in there.
All the reports are in here, without having to go through them all, I know you all have had an opportunity to read them, and a couple of them are quite lengthy. As I indicated in my conclusion whenever we do an investigation, and I don’t care whether it’s internal or external whenever we try to decide the truthfulness of a statement of an individual one of the key factors we look for is would that person have reason to be untruthful when he speaks to us. There’s other factors we can look at also, but that’s one of the key factors. Now, take the property manager from Millpond Village when she makes this statement to us, when she informed us of the statements made by Sgt. Drolett she had no reason to be untruthful with us. We were there for a reason other than Sgt. Drolett, we had no
reason to believe Sgt. Drolett had done anything wrong at that point in time, we were strictly there for a separate matter involving a separate officer. These statements were made by spontaneous utterances, meaning they were just thrown out there – no questions were posed with regard to Sgt. Drolett like did he call your or anything like this – it was just put out there but the property manager certainly has nothing to gain by this. She would have no reason to lie to us. When we spoke to the other person who had called her, he too would have n o reason to lie to us; he was forthcoming with what he said, he was forthcoming with the date, everything he said was completely accurate with what the property manager said, then we get to Sgt. Drolett, the focus of this investigation, he’s been disciplined by this commission, he was given a suspension, a 6 month probation and now this presented to him and I can see the reason on his part to try to avoid
admitting what was said, I’m sure he doesn’t want to be disciplined further, I’m sure that he might believe that this Board would be upset over the fact that they recently disciplined him for very similar act that is being committed again and that to present to you and for you to find that what I have to say here to be accurate and you choose to act upon it in a disciplinary manner; obviously, it could affect him again. So we have three key people here, the property manager, the other citizen and Sgt. Drolett. Two have the same ex act story, one doesn’t seem to know whether it happened or not.
So again I offer to you my final finding is that he did make the call, did make the statements, that he was untruthful to me and to Detective Carl in the two interviews that we did and as such I identified the sections of the Police Department manual and Departmental Operational Directives which I believe were violated by Sgt, Drolett and that’s at the end of my conclusion.
I do also have a letter here drafted by the officer involved and he wanted me to present it to the commission on his behalf. Also, if I may I would offer one more point to this commission – I’ve been accused of possibly having a personal agenda here and I will state unequivocally to this board that I have no personal agenda here, when I approach an internal investigation, I do so with complete impartiality. My character, reputation and integrity will not be challenged by any member of this department without the most serious fight by me that I can possibly present. I have no ill will towards any member of this department, I don’t take joy in the investigations that I am asked to do against other officers; my goal is only to gather the facts and present then as I truly believe they are. This board
may remember that during my interview for the position of Sergeant I was asked that if I came across what felt that a Sergeant was not acting properly or performing his duties properly, would I have an issue with bringing it forward and my answer was absolutely not I absolutely gain no pleasure whatsoever from this investigation, from having to present this investigation to this board, but I feel that I am doing the job I was charged to do as the Internal Affairs Investigator and I’ve done it completely and totally honestly.
Chairman Sherman: This letter that you just gave us – it’s from whom?
Sgt. Hannaford: It was presented by the officer against whom the statements were made.
Commissoner Sinsigallo: Who signed this?
Chairman Sherman: It’s on the bottom of the third page.
Commissioner Sinsigallo: Could we have a few minutes to read this please?
Chairman Sherman: Ok. We’ll take a couple of minutes to digest this letter.
Chairman Sherman: Does the board have any questions of the investigating officer?
Commissioner Sinsigallo: Yes, just one. Sgt. Hanaford do you have any specialized training in the interviewing process.
Sgt. Hannaford: Yes ma’am in interrogation and basic interviewing.
Chairman Sherman: Any other questions?
Commissioner Simmons: Sgt. you might have mentioned something about the initiation of a discovery into this event so that it could be resolved at that time. What would have been acceptable for a resolution at that time?
Sgt. Hannaford: I’m sorry
Commissioner Simmons: You mentioned something about resolving this at the time it was first discovered – the problem you said. What would have been the resolution?
Sgt. Hannaford: Had the questions been answered truthfully and I was able to present them to the Chief I just felt it would have been handled by the Chief with the commission but it wouldn’t be to this extent we’re at now – with this hearing such as we are now. I obviously am not in a position to speak on how the board is going to act here, but I just felt that obviously if you’re truthful, we all make mistakes, we’ve made our mistakes and I think that the Commission regardless of the mistakes would be willing to take that into consideration, and again when we’re untruthful it just compounds the act we have committed. Therefore, the discipline could be much more severe because of that. So my hopes in just being honest and above board with Sgt. Drolett was providing the opportunity for
him to be truthful and resolve this in a much quicker and hopefully easier manner.
Chairman Sherman: Are there any other questions of this officer? Does anybody have any questions of the other parties – Ms. Barlow or the other citizen?
Yes I have a question of this officer.
Chairman Sherman: Please state your name.
I am Attorney Eric Brown and I represent the East Windsor Police Union in this matter.
Atty Brown: Sergeant, you found at the conclusion of your investigation that Sgt. Drolett had engaged in 5 violations of the Rules and Regulations and the Code of Ethics, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: Violations of the Departmental Operational Directives and the Police Manual.
Atty Brown: In the first violation that you found, was that he violated Section 4.05.00, that’s of the Rules and Regulations?
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct. 4.05.00 as stated
Atty. Brown: That regulation deals with the Conduct of Sworn Employees, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct
Atty Brown: And you found that Sgt. Drolett had violated that portion of that section which requires employees to abide by the rules and regulations, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: Right
Atty Brown: Is there any other portion of that section that you found that Sgt. Drolett had violated?
Sgt. Hannaford: Without re-writing the whole thing as I copied it in here. I will read it to you verbatim: “ Other sworn and non-sworn employees shall abide by all Rules and Regulations of the department affecting their conduct, and all special rules, regulations, orders and other directions of department authority governing their duties, and shall assume all other duties as assigned.” This would also incorporate the Department Operational Directive issued by the Chief of Police with regards to harassment, libel and slander which is also found down further under the Operational Directives.
Atty Brown: What I’m trying to find out then is what Rules and Regulations, Special Rules, Regulations, Orders and other directions of the Department were violated by the conduct of Sgt. Drolett that you found?
Sgt. Hannaford: Conduct unbecoming, employee misconduct, Police Code of Ethics and harassment.
Atty Brown: ok. And that’s all, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: Those are the only five that I listed.
Atty Brown: Now this section 4.05.00 is the catch-all for all those other violations. Correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: It’s one of the rest – it’s separate
Atty Brown: But it’s a catch-all. In other words it doesn’t exist except in violation of the other sections of the rules and regulations, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: I’ll be honest, I don’t understand the question.
Atty Brown: Well, you can’t have a violation of 4.05 unless you violated some other rules and regulation , correct?
Sgt. Hannaford? Correct
Atty Brown: Now, you also found – let me ask you one other thing is there a rule or regulation which prohibits an officer of the East Windsor Police Department from making a truthful statement about another police officer?
Sgt. Hanaford: To whom?
Atty Brown: To anybody
Sgt. Hannaford: At this point I don’t know.
Atty Brown: But you didn’t find that he had violated any Rule or Regulation prohibiting from making a truthful statement about a officer to another individual, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: I didn’t notice anything, sorry.
Atty Brown: ok. Ok. Now the next violation that you found was that Sgt. Drolett had violated Section 14.01.00 of the Rules and Regulations, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct.
Atty Brown: That’s the Conduct Unbecoming section, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct
Atty Brown: on 14.01.00 states similar to section 4.05 “Any violation of Rules and Regulations , policies and procedures, directives, general order, 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”. Correct>?
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct
Atty Brown: What – we’ve already talked about which violation of rules and regulations and policies have occurred. Did you find with respect to this section, this conduct unbecoming section, that Sgt. Drolett engaged in any act which tended to undermine the good order, efficiency and discipline of the department, or which reflected discredit upon the department or any member thereof.
Sgt. Hannaford: Yes
Atty Brown: ok Tell me what act or acts you found that Sgt. Drolett had done which violated that provision.
Sgt. Hannaford: the statements he made which I believe touches my investigation with regards to the other officer.
Atty Brown: Anything else, apart from the statements he made?
Sgt. Hannaford: The fact that he is speaking disparagingly about another member of the Police Department which I believe also violates the harassment policy.
Atty Brown: But those are the statements he made, in other words are we talking about anything apart from the statements he made to Ms. Barlow.
Sgt. Hannaford: Sorry, one more time.
Atty Brown: The acts that you cite here, that violate section 14.01 are there any acts apart from the statements he made to Ms. Barlow that you say happened on July 11th?
Sgt. Hannaford: Just the statements made to Ms. Barlow and the fact that he was untruthful in his statements made with regard to this incident.
Atty Brown: Alright – so there are two acts. The statements that he made and those that you found to be untruthful. Is that correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: The statements made to Ms. Barlow correct and what I believe to be his untruthful answers.
Atty Brown: And there’s nothing else. There are no other acts apart from those two that violate 14.01, is that correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: Nothing comes to mind at this point.
Atty Brown: Now you’re not trying to deceive me when you say nothing comes to mind at this point, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: No
Atty Brown: ok What did you determine that Sgt. Drolett was untruthful about?
Sgt. Hannaford: Every question that was asked him with regards to the phone call, whether or not he made the phone call, the day of the phone call, the statements made, the answers that he provided to Detective Carl. I pretty much believe I covered that in my explanation to the Commission.
Atty Brown: Let me a little bit more specific. You talked about in your statement to the commission about you believe that Sgt. Drolett was being untruthful when you asked him whether or not he had something to eat on his way back from Cape Cod.
Sgt. Hannaford: His recollection of whether he stopped to get something to eat, right
Atty Brown: And you thought he was being untruthful when he responded?
Sgt. Hannnaford: Right
Atty Brown: He said he didn’t recall, correct
Sgt. Hanaford: I believe so, yes
Atty Brown: How is that related to the investigation? Whether he had something to eat on his way back from Cape Cod, how is that relevant to the investigation.
Sgt. Hannaford: You ask questions that are such that the person can answer, easily enough without having to say I can’t recall, I think possibly. These were questions that Detective Carl asked him and when he asked for a direct response.
Atty Brown: Did you determine that he did have something to eat on his way back from Cape Cod?
Sgt. Hannaford: I don’t believe that he could ever recall
Atty Brown: So how do you know he was untruthful in his responses?
Sgt. Hannaford: By virtue of the way he answered the questions
Atty Brown: Isn’t it also true that if he had said he had something to eat on his way back from Cape Cod and it was determined that he hadn’t that he would be subject to discipline for bring untruthful?
Sgt. Hannaford: No, that’s not true.
Atty Brown: That’s not true even if
Sgt. Hannaford: No it’s not true
Atty Brown: Is it possible that in an effort to be as truthful as possible, Sgt. Drolett would tell you I don’t recall because he didn’t want to make a mistake.
Sgt. Hannaford: Again
Atty Brown: In an effort to be as truthful as possible with you Sgt. Drolett would give you a response that he didn’t recall so that he wouldn’t be making a misstatement of facts to you?
Sgt. Hannaford: The statements that he made, he did not recollect an issue and in some instances he could recollect later on.
Atty Brown: Like what?
Sgt. Hannaford: Like for instance the stopping for gas, he says he could not recollect but later on he recollects the fact that he must of stopped for gas because his daughter and her friend needed to use the rest room and he engaged in conversation with this female.
Atty Brown: And again, he had no reason to lie about whether he stopped for gas or not, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: I can’t think of any reason why he should lie.
Atty Brown: Right, because it’s not relevant to the investigation, is it?
Sgt. Hannaford: No
Atty Brown: But you found that he lied and you believe that was an act that constituted conduct unbecoming, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct
Atty Brown¨ Now you said in your presentation to the Commission that the time period of approximately six weeks went by between the time he stopped for gas, got something to eat and went to the bathroom and the time he was asked the questions. Do you recall that?
Sgt. Hannaford: Yes, approximately
Atty Brown: But it’s true, is it not, that the day he came back from Cape Cod was July 11th , correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct
Atty Brown: And the day he was interviewed and asked about what he had to eat and whether he went to the bathroom was Sept. 28th, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: Yes, I believe that was the second interview.
Atty Brown: In between July 10th and September 28th isn’t six weeks, it’s actually 11 weeks isn’t it?
Sgt. Hannaford: Something like that.
Atty Brown: Were you lying to the commission when you said it was 6 weeks?
Sgt. Hannaford: No, because the first interview was on September 10th
Which is what I based it on.
Atty Brown: So September the 10th is two weeks prior which would put us in the range of 8 and a half weeks, not six weeks, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: I didn’t do the math, I apologize.
Atty Brown: But you weren’t lying, were you?
Atty Brown: You also found in the conclusion of your investigation that Sgt. Drolett had engaged in a violation of Section 14.03.00 which is titled “Employee Misconduct” correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: Which section is that?
Atty. Brown: 14.03.00.
Sgt. Hannaford: Yes
Atty Brown: That section states “ the duties performed by this agency are vital to the safety and well-being of this community. Because of the importance of these duties, it is essential that the department set and maintain high standards of conduct among its personnel. Misconduct by employees cannot be tolerated because it weakens the department’s effectiveness, erodes public trust, and can endanger members of the public or members of this department. The following sections describe behavior which is regarded as misconduct. Such behavior will be grounds for disciplinary action whenever it is brought to the attention of the department. There is nothing more, is that the section that you found he violated – section 14.03.00?
Sgt. Hannaford: Yes, sir
Atty Brown: So essentially it says that you can’t engage in misconduct, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: I don’t see how we are going to have problems
Atty Brown: Well, there’s no real prohibition here. It talks about it’s bad to engage in misconduct and that’s essentially what this prohibits is employee misconduct, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: Misconduct being the statements made which cannot be tolerated because it weakens the department’s effectiveness and can endanger members of the department
Atty Brown: Ok. You anticipate my next question. My next question is, the misconduct that you’re citing here is a violation of 14.03 the statements that Sgt. Drolett allegedly made to Ms. Barlow? Is that the misconduct? That’s one component, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: The statements made to Ms. Barlow, correct.
Atty Brown: Alright.
Sgt. Hannaford: I felt that the statements made weakened the department’s effectiveness in conducting it’s investigation into the other member of the department.
Atty. Brown: And the second thing you believe is employee misconduct is his untruthfulness?
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct
Atty Brown: And there’s nothing else, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct
Atty Brown: You also cited in the conclusion of your investigative report that Sgt. Drolett had violated the code of ethics section 1-9. The Code of Ethics Section 1-9 is found on page 19 of your report, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct
Atty Brown: What section of the Code of Ethics did you find that Sgt. Drolett had violated?
Sgt. Hannaford: “I will never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, animosities or friendships to influence my decisions.
Atty Brown: So you found, just so the record is clear, that Sgt. Drolett violated this Department directive paragraph at the bottom “I will never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, animosities or friendships to influence my decisions.” Was there anything else beside that or was it just the first sentence?
Sgt. Hannaford: The first sentence dealt with the information that I had
Atty Brown: I know I’m being repetitious, but I just want to be clear, was it your belief that the statements Sgt. Drolett made to Ms. Barlow was what violated this particular sentence in the department directive.
Sgt. Hannaford: I think I can sum it up pretty quick for you sir. The fact of the matter is –
Atty Brown: I asked you a specific question
Sgt. Hannaford: I’m answering your question
Atty Brown: Let me ask the question again, just so I can be certain of your answer. Was it your belief that the statements that Sgt. Drolett made to Ms. Barlow were the acts which violated this sentence of this Departmental Directive?
Sgt. Hannaford: Yes
Atty Brown: Was there anything else you found that Sgt. Drolett did which violated this sentence of this directive?
Sgt. Hannaford: No
Atty Brown: Finally you found that Sgt. Drolett had violated the harassment policy section 26-04, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct
Atty Brown: And in particular, you found that Sgt. Drolett had violated the libel, slander and rumor section of that Departmental Directive, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct
Atty Brown: Is there anything else apart from the libel, slander and rumor provision that you believe he violated?
Sgt. Hannaford: I believe that was it.
Atty Brown: Ok. So you found in your investigation that there were 5 particular violations of the Codes and Directives of the Department and those particular violations were a result of two particular occurrences, one was a statement that was made to Ms. Barlow and the second was what you believe to be his untruthfulness in the investigation, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford; That is correct.
Atty Brown: And that’s all, correct
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct
Atty Brown: Now I want to look at the statements that Sgt. Drolett is alleged to have made to Ms. Barlow. There were 4 statements found in your investigation that you found violated the various directives and regulations, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: Yes, in the 4 statements made to Ms. Barlow,
Atty Brown: The first statement you found that he made was he said he was “not surprised that Doug Humphrey was removed from the position”, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct
Atty Brown: In fact, Doug Humphrey was removed from the position, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: No. He resigned from the position.
Atty Brown: He resigned from the position, correct
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct
Atty Brown: Had there been complaints brought against Doug Humphrey’s performance in his position?
Sgt. Hannaford: I don’t know that, I never discussed it as it is another personnel matter. I don’t know that I’m at liberty to discuss the particular issues pertaining to the complaints made.
Atty Brown: Do you want to talk about it
Atty Penny: It’s in the bargaining – do you want to discuss his misconduct without putting him on notice?
Atty Brown: Well I think I have to the extent it goes to the defense of the officer.
Atty Brown: May we take a break to discuss this?
Atty Penny: Is it alright with you Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sherman: Sure, take a break – 10 minutes.
Per the request of both counsels, the meeting was stopped at 8:00 p.m. and resumed at 8:15 p.m. after the two attorneys had finished their discussion.
Atty Brown: Sergeant, without getting into any of allegations made against Off. Humphrey it is true that allegations were made against Off. Humphrey by Ms. Barlow, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct.
Atty Brown: Regarding the performance of his duties up there, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct
Atty Brown: And did he resign that post prior to the allegations being made or after the allegations had been made?
Sgt. Hannaford: Prior to my receiving
Atty Brown: And you conducted the internal investigation of Off. Humphrey, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct
Atty Brown: And you ultimately came to the conclusion that the allegations made by Ms. Barlow were not substantiated, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: That is not correct.
Atty Brown: Did you come to the conclusion that the allegations made by Ms. Barlow were substantiated?
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct
Atty Brown: Was Off. Humphrey disciplined as a result of that investigation?
Sgt. Hannaford: Yes he was.
Atty Brown: Did you reach the conclusion that certain aspects of the allegations made by Ms. Barlow were not substantiated?
Sgt Hannaford: Certain portions, yes sir.
Atty Brown: Did you come a conclusion as to whether or not Ms. Barlow was credible in her allegations as part of that investigation?
Sgt. Hannaford: I found her very credible.
Atty Brown: Getting back to that statement, the first statement that Sgt. Drolett allegedly made – the statement allegedly was “that he was not surprised that Doug Humphrey was removed from the position” You inquired of him as to whether or not he had made the statement, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct
Atty Brown: And his response to you was that he may have made that statement in response to a statement or question from Ms. Barlow, is that correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct.
Atty Brown: But he didn’t recall making the statement, correct
Sgt. Hannaford: That was his initial response to my question.
Atty Brown: The second statement that was allegedly made by Sgt. Drolett was “Bruce Everett is a good officer for the position and will do a good job” correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct
Atty Brown: And you asked Sgt. Drolett if he had made that statement, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct
Atty Brown: And Sgt. Drolett told you that he couldn’t recall but that is something he might say to promote the good will of the department, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct
Atty Brown: The third statement that Sgt. Drolett was alleged to have made was “the officer has a bad reputation in this town”, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct
Atty Brown: And Sgt. Drolett said to you he doubted he would make that statement, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: I believe that is correct, yes sir.
Atty Brown: And then as part of your investigation, you found that Mr. Knibloe had made a number of statements that would indicated that indeed the officer did have a bad reputation in town, correct?
Sgt Hannaford: Mr. Knibloe made statements to Ms. Barlow.
Atty Brown: Right. Mr. Knibloe made statements that the officer owed everybody money, was shacking up with his girlfriend, and was not on the property while on duty, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct
Atty Brown: And those statements would be an indication that the officer has a bad reputation in town, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: That would be Mr. Knibloe’s opinion, I believe.
Atty Brown: So that would be the reputation the officer had at least with respect to Mr. Knibloe. Correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: With respect to Mr. Knibloe.
Atty Brown: Mr. Knibloe is in town, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct
Atty Brown: And those statements about someone would be statements of bad repute not good repute, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: I believe so.
Atty Brown: So if Sgt. Drolett made the statement that the officer has a bad reputation in town, that’s a truthful statement, correct, at least with respect to Mr. Knibloe.
Sgt. Hannaford: I don’t believe so.
Atty Brown: Well he has a bad reputation as far as Mr. Knibloe is concerned.
Sgt. Hannaford: Mr. Knibloe is not the whole town.
Atty Brown: Right, but it’s an indication that he has a bad reputation in town, correct
Sgt. Hannaford: With Mr. Knibloe
Atty Brown: Right, in town, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: With Mr. Knibloe
Atty Brown: Right in town, right?
Sgt. Hannaford: With Mr. Knibloe.
Atty Brown: Right, in town
Sgt. Hannaford: With Mr. Knibloe, that was my answer.
Atty Brown: Have you ever heard anybody else make comments about the officer that he owed people money, that he was shacking up with his girlfriend or was not on the property while on duty?
Sgt. Hannaford: Part of that was the initial complaint by Millpond Village, not all of it, but parts of it.
Atty Brown: Ok. So that too would be indicative that the officer had a bad reputation in town, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: Not really.
Atty Brown: From the personnel at Millpond Village
Sgt. Hannaford: I don’t believe that had anything to do with his reputation, or his misconduct there.
Atty Brown: And finally the 4th statement that Sgt. Drolett is alleged to have made was that he stated quote” that he was surprised it had taken this long to get rid of the officer”, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct
Atty Brown: And Sgt Drolett’s response to you when you asked him if he had made that statement was that he would not make such a statement and that he was surprised that he was being accused of making such a statement. Correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: That sounds correct
Atty Brown: So he denied making that statement, to the extent that he could recall, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: I’m sorry could you say that one more time?
Atty Brown: He denied making that statement to the extent that he could recall, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: I believe there was more to that than what you are saying.
Atty Brown: There’s a written statement from Sgt. Drolett in here, in the investigation, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct, I have it right here, “I was caught off guard. I’m surprised that I have been accused of making such a statement.”
Atty Brown: That was his response when accused of making the statement, correct
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct
Atty Brown: Now the allegation from Ms. Barlow was that Sgt. Drolett had this conversation with her on July 11th, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct
Atty Brown: Sgt. Drolett denied that he had this conversation with her on July 11th, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: I believe he could not recall.
Atty Brown: Now he says at the bottom of his statement “I believe Nancy made a mistake on the date in which she claims we had the phone conversation. It could not have occurred on July 11, 2005 and therefore I believe that she could be mistaken on these comments/statements. That’s what he said.
Sgt. Hannaford: Initially, he said he did not recall having a conversation with her on that date.
Atty Brown: Right he said he could not recall and then he said it could not have occurred.
Sgt. Hannaford: Where are you?
Atty Brown: At the bottom of the second page of his statement, right before he says this interview was concluded.
Sgt. Hannaford: correct
Atty Brown: This interview was done about 8 ½ weeks after July 11th, correct? It was done on September the 10th.
Sgt. Hannaford: It was done on September 10th. However my report says approximately 4 to 6
Atty Brown: No 8 ½
Sgt. Hannaford: I apologize, you’re correct.
Atty Brown: So there’s no consistency in him saying that he could not recall and after being interrogated further said that the call could not have occurred on July 11th I mean he states emphatically that it could not have occurred on July 11th, correct
Sgt. Hannaford: He made that statement, correct
Atty Brown: And he never wavered from that position thereafter, did he?
Sgt. Hannaford: I believe he did, I believe he went back to not recalling.
Atty Brown: He told you that he had a conversation with Ms. Barlow on July 18th correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: He had phone records which indicated that correct, right.
Atty Brown: And he told you that that’s when he had a conversation with her.
Sgt. Hannaford: That’s correct and she verified that they did have a conversation on July 18th.
Atty Brown: And that conversation, he said, was related to trying to get paid for work he had done as a private contractor at Millpond village, correct
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct. And she verified it, correct
Atty Brown: So he produced the phone records to you from his cell phone, correct?
Sgt Hannaford: That’s what he reported, I’m not sure as I never checked their authenticity.
Atty Brown: Alright, but you asked for phone records and he provided them to you, correct.
Sgt. Hannaford: That’s not correct.
Atty Brown: How did you get the phone records?
Sgt. Hannaford: He volunteered them, I never asked for them, he volunteered them and I told him they were part of this investigation.
Atty Brown: And the phone records do not show that he had a phone conversation with Ms. Barlow on July 11th, do they?
Sgt. Hannaford: No sir, the ones produced, no.
Atty Brown: Are there any that you wanted him to produce that he refused to produce?
Sgt. Hannaford: No I never asked him to produce any.
Atty Brown: Alright. And the records that you received from him did in fact show that he had a phone conversation with Ms. Barlow on July 18th, correct.
Sgt. Hannaford: Yes
Atty Brown: Now, on July 10th Sgt. Drolett started his vacation on Cape Cod, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct
Atty Brown: The officer left the position at Millpond Village on July 8th, correct
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct
Atty Brown: When he left the position, how did he notify the department he was leaving?
Sgt. Hannaford: I don’t know that
Atty Brown: Was it public knowledge by July 11th that he was leaving?
Sgt. Hannaford: I don’t know
Atty Brown: You did an investigation surrounding this, did you not?
Sgt. Hannaford: No
Atty Brown: So you don’t know whether it was public knowledge on July 11th?
Sgt. Hannaford: No I don’t know
Atty Brown: Do you know how Sgt. Drolett would have gotten the information on July 11th that he had left the position?
Sgt. Hannaford: I don’t know how he would have gotten that information.
Atty Brown: Did you ever ask him
Sgt. Hannaford: I don’t believe I did, no.
Atty Brown: Now Sgt. Drolett testified, not testified, Sgt. Drolett stated in his statements during the investigation that he came back to East Windsor from Cape Cod on July 11th, correct
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct
Atty Brown: And he made a number of stops and had reasons for coming back on July 11th, correct
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct
Atty Brown: And the reason he told you he had to come back on July 11th was to bring his daughter’s friend to East Windsor, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct
Atty Brown: And he made a number of stops while he was in East Windsor, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct
Atty Brown: Did he stop home?
Sgt. Hannaford: Yes, he did
Atty Brown: He also told you that he had several phone numbers to contact Millpond Village on his personal cell phone, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: correct
Atty Brown: And he told you that if he did not use his personal cell phone to call Millpond Village he would have to look the phone number up, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: Initially yes, but then he changed it later.
Atty Brown: What did he change it to later?
Sgt. Hannaford: That he would just flip through his numbers and pick the one he wanted to call.
Atty Brown: And do you believe that he would flip through his number, flip through his numbers on his cell phone, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct
Atty Brown: Do you believe he would flip through his numbers on his cell phone and then call from another phone?
Sgt. Hannaford: Its possible
Atty Brown: Does it make sense to you that someone would do that?
Sgt. Hannaford: Yes, it could be.
Atty Brown: Did you ever make the determination as to where he made the phone call to Linda Barlow from on July 11th if in fact he did make the phone call to he on July 11th.
Sgt. Hannaford: No I have not made that determination
Atty Brown: Did you ever try to get his phone records from his home phone?
Sgt. Hannaford: No sir.
Atty Brown: But the cell phone records you have show that he did not make the phone call from his cell phone, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: The ones he gave me, yes sir
Atty Brown: As part of an internal investigation, you can order him to produce other cell phone records, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: The personal phone, I don’t know if he would have to produce those or not. I honestly don’t know.
Atty Brown: Well, if the question or the evidence sought is related to the performance of his duties, or his ability to perform his duties, you can order him to respond, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct
Atty Brown: And certainly whether or not he made the phone call on July 11th was vital to this investigation, correct
Sgt. Hannaford: One more time sir.
Atty Brown: Certainly whether or not he made the phone call on July 11th was vital to this investigation, correct
Sgt. Hannaford: The date itself I don’t believe is vital to the investigation
Atty Brown: Well, you found as part of your credibility weigh in that Ms. Barlow was certainly credible and Sgt. Drolett was not. One of the reasons you found that Ms. Barlow was credible was because she stuck to her story, she was insistent that the phone call came from Sgt. Drolett on July 11th, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct
Atty Brown: So therefore, the issue as to whether or not the phone call was made on July 11th becomes vitally important to this investigation doesn’t it.
Sgt. Hannaford: It’s a part of the investigation which I felt led to her credibility and again the phone calls on the same date by two separate people. She’s accurate on one and supposedly inaccurate on the other one and I find that difficult to believe.
Atty Brown: Unless she confused the contents of the conversation that she had with Mr. Knibloe on the 11th and the contents of the conversation she had with Sgt. Drolett on the 18th.
Sgt. Hannaford: And I disagree with that because of the statements she says were made by Mr. Knibloe were confirmed by Mr. Knibloe. I don’t believe there was a mistake on her part.
Atty Brown: Did you ever determine what motivation Sgt. Drolett would have to come home from vacation on Cape Cod on the 11th to make disparaging comments to Ms. Barlow by telephone about a fellow officer.
Sgt. Hannaford: I don’t believe there was motivation on his part. I believe that there was a conversation that he had with Ms. Barlow, whom he considered to be a friend, and he made his personal feelings known which I believe are inappropriate by our Department’s Policies and Procedures, Rules and Regulations and Operational Directives.
Atty Brown: How long have you been a sergeant for?
Sgt. Hannaford: For a year and 6 months
Atty Brown: Prior to becoming a sergeant, did Sgt. Drolett ever discipline you
Sgt. Hannaford: Nothing comes to mind.
Atty Brown: Is it possible that he did and you just can’t recall.
Sgt. Hannaford: I haven’t reviewed my personnel file recently. I’ve received very little discipline in my career – I’m sure it’s possible but I don’t believe so.
Atty Brown: Have you ever had – no that’s wrong. Prior to conducting this investigation of Sgt. Drolett have you ever had previous verbal disputes with Sgt. Drolett?
Sgt. Hannaford: Yes sir
Atty Brown: And they were loud and angry disputes, correct
Sgt. Hannaford: There’s one in particular, yes sir
Atty Brown: And when was that
Sgt. Hannaford: I don’t recall the date
Atty Brown: Within the last five years, the last ten years
Sgt. Hannaford: Last few years, it’s possible
Atty Brown: Sgt. Drolett is more senior to you on the Sergeants seniority list, correct
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct
Atty Brown: And this past summer each of you were seeking the special sergeants position, correct
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct, absolutely yes – Special Services Sergeant
Atty Brown: Special Services Sergeant position? So you stand to benefit if Sgt. Drolett is disciplined, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: No sir
Atty Brown: In determining who will gain the Special Services Sergeant position don’t you agree that disciplinary records will be looked at?
Sgt. Hannaford: No sir
Atty Brown: You don’t think that’s a component of making that determination?
Sgt. Hannaford: No I don’t believe so – no I don’t think it’s a component.
Atty Brown: Since becoming a sergeant you were assigned to the midnight shift, correct
Sgt. Hannaford: Initially, yes
Atty Brown: Are you still assigned to midnights
Sgt. Hannaford: No sir.
Atty. Brown: What are you assigned to now?
Sgt. Hannaford: Day shift
Atty Brown: As a patrol sergeant
Sgt. Hannaford: As a special services sergeant
Atty Brown: Oh so you got that position, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct
Atty Brown: When did you get the position
Sgt. Hannaford: It became effective the 1st Monday in October, I believe it was the second.
Atty Brown: And did you get that position over Sgt. Drolett?
Sgt. Hannaford: He was one of the candidates, yes sir.
Atty Brown: Prior to gaining that position, you worked midnights, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct
Atty Brown: And you did not enjoy working midnights, correct
Sgt. Hannaford: I didn’t have any problem with it, no
Atty Brown: And did you ever tell anybody that you didn’t want to be stuck on midnights forever?
Sgt. Hannaford: I’m sure, I don’t think anybody wants to be stuck on midnights forever.
Atty Brown: I know some guys who like it.
Atty Brown: After the second interview of Sgt, Drolett, you called his union representative into an interview, correct
Sgt. Hannaford: That was on October 5th – it came to my attention. I spoke to him on October 6th.
Atty Brown: That was Off. Fahey, correct
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct
Atty Brown: And the reason Officer Fahey was in the interview with Sgt. Drolett was as his union representative, correct
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct
Atty Brown: And otherwise he had no reason to be there, correct
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct
Atty Brown: And he would not have been in the interview absent of his position as Union Representative, correct
Sgt. Hannaford: The request of Sgt. Drolett, that’s correct
Atty Brown: And subsequent to the interview of Sgt. Drolett in which Off. Fahey was present, you interviewed Off. Fahey, correct?
Sgt. Hannaford: Subsequent?
Atty Brown Yes
Sgt. Hannaford: Yes, after the second interview, correct
Atty Brown: Did you order him to respond to questions you asked.
Sgt. Hannaford: No sir.
Atty Brown: Did you give him an opportunity to have a union representative present
Sgt. Hannaford: No sir.
Atty Brown: Did you feel it was appropriate to ask him his opinions about the interview conducted of Sgt. Drolett given that he was there solely in his capacity as a union representative
Sgt. Hannaford: Absolutely, as I only questioned him with regards to a statement he voluntarily made to the other investigator who is Detective Carl. I would not offer him union representation because he was not the focus of any disciplinary action
Atty Brown: It’s possible that if a union representative had been brought in, that representative would have told him not to answer any questions, correct
Sgt. Hannaford: I don’t know
Atty Brown: That happens occasionally does it not?
Sgt. Hannaford: The union representative actually has no right to speak on a administrative interview
Atty Brown: But they can tell them not to answer questions and end the interview if they’re not being ordered, correct
Sgt. Hannaford: No
Atty Brown: You don’t know that
Sgt. Hannaford: No they can’t
Atty Brown: ok
Atty Brown: As part of the investigation you attempted to force Sgt. Drolett to take a polygraph examination, correct
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct
Atty Brown: That you ordered him to be present for a polygraph exam did you not?
Sgt. Hannaford: Yes, sir
Atty Brown: That was despite the fact that Connecticut General Statutes prohibit a police department from ordering a current certified officer from taking a polygraph examination, correct
Sgt. Hannaford: That’s not correct. You interpret the statute differently. The State Labor board has upheld polygraph testing in an administrative investigation.
Atty Brown: You also knew it violated Departmental Directives, correct
Sgt. Hannaford: Initially, no
Atty Brown: Subsequent you found out
Sgt. Hannaford: Yes, sir and it was immediately stopped.
Atty Brown: In conducting this investigation were you aware that Sgt. Drolett had previously and recently filed a law suit claiming that his First Amendment Rights had been violated as a result of a prior discipline
Sgt. Hannaford: Yes sir
Atty Brown: How did you become aware of that
Sgt. Hannaford: Through the attorney representing the Chief
Atty Brown: How did you become aware of through the attorney representing the Chief
Sgt. Hannaford: He had questions for me pertaining to my investigation
Atty Brown: Of the previous disciplinary matter
Sgt Hannaford: Correct
Atty Brown: Are you friendly with the Chief
Sgt. Hannaford: He’s my boss, no
Atty Brown: No
Sgt. Hannaford: Outside of work, no
Atty Brown: Are you friendly with him inside of work
Sgt. Hannaford: Sure – I’m friendly with everyone inside the department
Atty Brown: You asked Detective Carl to aid you in your investigation of this matter, correct
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct
Atty Brown: Detective Carl was the complaining party in the previous discipline that was issued to Sgt. Drolett, correct
Sgt. Hannaford: He was the victim
Atty Brown: The victim. So he was victimized by something Sgt. Drolett did, correct
Sgt. Hannaford: So it appeared, yes
Atty Brown: And subsequently Sgt. Drolett filed his First Amendment lawsuit against the Chief and the Town, correct
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct
Atty Brown: Do you think that Detective Carl could be unbiased in his investigation of this matter, given the fact that he was victimized do you believe previously by Sgt. Drolett
Sgt. Hannaford: Absolutely
Atty Brown: That’s all I have
Chairman Sherman: Commissioners, do you have any questions
Commissioner Barton: Yes, I have a few. Sgt. Regarding your charges, I believe you testified – you stated in your report and you testified that the basis of your charges are the statements made to Ms. Barlow and the – and your belief that Sgt. Drolett was not truthful during your investigation of that – two main points. Is that correct
Sgt. Hannaford: That’s correct sir.
Commissioner Barton: In terms of the entire interview process which is very lengthy and the many questions that were asked regarding stops and food and so forth was there a purpose to those questions?
Sgt. Hannaford: Yes Sir
Commissioner Barton: And what was that
Sgt. Hannaford: The purpose is to provide the person an opportunity to give a direct response without confusing questions. Generally, the person will not have difficulty answering those types of questions with regard to trips and so on.
Commissioner Barton: But in terms of the questioning and the interviewing in it’s totality was all of that questioning designed to give you some idea about the credibility of the witness and how it reflects on the original question.
Sgt. Hannaford: Absolutely
Commissioner Barton: Was it the statements that were made, or alleged to have been made, or the action of making the statements the violation
Sgt. Hannaford: The statements made – the effect that I felt they had on the investigation I was conducting.
Commissioner Barton: Regarding the department directive regarding harassment, libel and so forth which you charged, is it permissible to make pejorative statements about another member of the department even if they are true
Sgt. Hannaford: I would say no
Commissioner Barton: So would it constitute conduct unbecoming if one member of the department made a statement to someone in the general public about a person’s reputation or habit about shacking up or whatever, even if it was true. Would that be a violation?
Sgt. Hannaford: I believe so.
Commissioner Barton: Do you have any of the motives suggested here tonight to take action against Sgt. Drolett? Either prior disciplinary action or competition for a particular position
Sgt. Hannaford: Absolutely not. I take offense the fact that that was even insinuated. I took the competitive examination for the position and I finished number 1. I take pride in the fact that I finished no. 1 on my own merit, based on my own knowledge. The testing process that was given
Commissioner Barton: I guess you answered my next question. Would you consider doing something like that in your professional position?
Sgt. Hannaford: Absolutely not, sir. My integrity and my honesty are the most important things, and I have no motives to sit before this board and being untruthful for any reason
Commissioner Barton: Do you display any favoritism in the department, in the investigations, in the assignments or anything?
Sgt. Hannaford: Absolutely not.
Commissioner Barton: Could you explain how Detective Carl would be unbiased as it was suggested since he was a previous victim, that he might not be able to be unbiased.
Sgt. Hannaford: First and foremost I work with Detective Carl in many instances and I have always found him to be reputable in his investigations, not harboring any ill feelings and allowing them to play in and again I believe he is also an individual that is concerned about his reputation and honesty. I was there when he presented his question and when he formulated his findings, his conclusion and I would certainly not allow those to be presented to you if I felt they were in any way biased towards Sgt. Drolett
Commissioner Barton: Did you and Detective Carl discuss the results of your two interviews and try to come up with some determination as to whether or not Sgt. Drolett was being truthful. Did you really, did you take a lot of time trying to arrive at that conclusion or was it easy – I mean I guess what I’m getting at is did you take a lot of care in the process, to , based upon your training and experience to determine whether or not the interviews were truthful.
Sgt. Hannaford: I believe we discussed it very thoroughly and we both had pretty similar conclusions with regards to the answers that were presented to our questions and the fact that he was, according to our conclusions, the fact that he was untruthful.
Commissioner Barton: So that and the statements given by Ms. Barlow and Mr. Knibloe and the truthfulness, or lack of truthfulness, of that activity those are the things that led you to believe that Sgt. Drolett was not truthful
Sgt. Hannaford: That’s correct sir.
Commissioner Barton: That’s all
Chairman Sherman: Does anybody else have any questions
Atty. Brown: I have some follow-up questions
Atty Brown: Sergeant, Commissioner Barton asked you about whether or not it is proper for an officer to make pejorative statements about another officer. The statement “Bruce Everett was a good officer for the position and would do a good job” certainly not a pejorative statement.
Sgt. Hannaford: No, pejorative meaning?
Atty Brown: Sheds a poor light on something. Do you believe that a statement that Sgt. Drolett said it that “he was not surprised Doug Humphrey was removed from the position” – do you believe that is a pejorative statement
Sgt. Hannaford: I believe it could be.
Atty Brown: Now in her initial interview with you Ms. Barlow stated that Sgt. Drolett had referred to the officer as a snake in the grass, correct
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct
Atty Brown: And in her subsequent interview she would not agree that Sgt. Drolett made that statement, correct
Sgt. Hannaford: Correct
Atty Brown: Except that referring to that officer as a snake in the grass, of the 5 statements that were alleged to have been made that would be the most pejorative
Sgt. Hannaford: Yes I would believe that. But she also said in her second statement that she did recall a derogatory statement but she just couldn’t attest to the fact that it was that statement.
Atty Brown: That’s all I have.
Chairman Sherman: ok. Are there any other questions
Chairman Sherman: At this time we will be going into the second part …..
Commissioner Devanney: Excuse me Dick, I would like to ask Ms. Barlow a couple of questions.
Chairman Sherman: Alright, Ms. Barlow would you please come up
Nancy Barlow came forward at the request of Chairman Sherman.
Commissioner Devanney: I just want to read part of this statement, the sentence here in regards to your conversation with Sgt. Drolett. It says,” Ms. Barlow stated Sgt. Drolett had stated he was “not surprised that Doug Humphrey was removed from the position,” that “Bruce Everitt was a good officer for the position and would do a good job” that “Doug Humphrey has a bad reputation in town” that “he (Sergeant Drolett) was surprised it had taken this long to rid of Doug Humphrey”, and that he (Sergeant Drolett) referred to Doug Humphrey as a “snake in the grass”. Is that truthful?
Nancy Barlow: Yes
Commissioner Devanney: Except now I understand that maybe a section of that is not quite accurate, but the rest you do recall saying that?
Nancy Barlow: Absolutely. When I was second questioned on that I didn’t want to say absolutely yes I knew something was derogatory, but I’m not going to lie – so that’s exactly what I told the Detective.
Commissioner Devanney: But the rest is correct?
Nancy Barlow: Yes ma’am. Also in that conversation if I may add, I’m sure I can add to that statement when I first received that phone call, first thing in the morning on Monday morning he told me that Bruce Everitt, “You’re going to like Bruce, Bruce is going to be there. And I didn’t know Officer Everitt’s first name, and I asked him three times who’s Bruce, who are you talking about, he said Everitt, Officer Everitt. I said I never knew Bruce’s first name. He’s the one who informed me that Bruce was the officer. I had not known.
Chairman Sherman: Any other questions?
Commissioner Barton: Was that on the Monday morning directly after – did you have someone there at that time. Was Bruce Everitt on duty at that time?
Nancy Barlow: No Friday, Officer Humphrey resigned his position, I came to work on Monday morning, normal business and the phone started ringing very shortly after 9:00. I’m sure if they pulled phone records, you would see the phone calls that were made.
Commissioner Barton: So that’s why you’re certain the phone calls were made on the 11th
Nancy Barlow: Yes
Chairman Sherman: Any other questions
Atty Brown: I’m trying to find Ms. Barlow’s statement. Ms. Barton, Barlow, I’m sorry
Commissioner Barton: that’s me
Atty Brown: Ms. Barlow, you never made any statements do either of the investigating officers regarding the comments you just made about Officer Everitt, correct
Nancy Barlow: No I didn’t
Atty Brown: It’s not in your statement you gave on September 8, 2005, correct
Nancy Barlow: I’d have to read it – I don’t know
Commissioner Sinsigallo to Atty Brown: What was your question?
Atty Brown to Commissioner Sinsigallo: She had made comments about asking what Officer Everitt’s first name was, she didn’t know what his name was – she talked about three times I think she asked about who’s this Bruce – it’s not in that statement – I don’t believe
Nancy Barlow in response to this side conversation: It is not in that statement
Atty Brown continued questioning Ms. Barlow: And well I guess you don’t have the IA report – but just for the Commission’s edification – it’s also not in that third paragraph on page 1 of the IA report. Are you sure you made that statement to the investigating officer regarding not knowing Officer Everitt’s first name?
Nancy Barlow: I don’t believe I said it at the time
Atty Brown: When do you believe you made that statement
Nancy Barlow: It had to have been the first day they questioned me on that.
Atty Brown: And was that the day that you wrote this statement dated September 8th.
Nancy Barlow: Ah, no
Atty Brown: ok, that was a different day
Nancy Barlow: Correct
Atty Brown: You stated that you believed Sgt. Drolett made his telephone call to you on the morning of July 11th , is that correct
Nancy Barlow: Yes
Atty Brown: Do you know what time that was approximately
Nancy Barlow: Umm roughly shortly after 9:00
Atty Brown: Nine in the morning
Nancy Barlow: 9:00 a.m.
Atty Brown: Do you know how long a drive it is from Cape Cod to East Windsor, Connecticut
Nancy Barlow: Umm – I don’t know
Atty Brown: Would it surprise you that it’s sometime between three and four hours
Nancy Barlow: No
Atty Brown: Could you tell from your conversation with Sgt. Drolett whether he was speaking to you on a cellular telephone
Nancy Barlow: I couldn’t determine that
Atty Brown: Was the conversation choppy in any way – did it go in or out of service during the call
Nancy Barlow: No
Atty Brown: Did he state to you where he was at the time he was making the phone call
Nancy Barlow: As a matter of fact he did, he said he was at the Cape
Atty Brown: He told you he was at the Cape
Nancy Barlow: Yeah, actually on both occasions. Also on the occasion when he called regarding the invoices to the private contracting
Atty Brown: When he called you on July 18th he told you he was at the Cape, is that correct?
Nancy Barlow: Yes
Atty Brown: And he told you during the July 11th phone call that he was at the Cape, correct
Nancy Barlow: Yes
Atty. Brown: But you didn’t put that in your written statement, did you
Nancy Barlow: No
Atty Brown: And you did not tell that to either of the investigating officers did you
Nancy Barlow: I don’t remember per se. I can’t say for sure.
Atty Brown: Do you recall if either of the investigating officers ever asked you about his location at the time he made the phone calls?
Nancy Barlow: I don’t think so – no
Atty Brown: That’s all I have
Chairman Sherman: Are there any other questions from any other member on the board and/or the attorneys.
Atty Penny: Ms. Barlow, what was the purpose of Sgt. Drolett’s phone call to you on July 11th
Nancy Barlow: To talk about Doug or something
Atty Penny: And what is the nature of the information that he gave to you during this conversation?
Nancy Barlow: I’m not sure I understand that question
Atty Penny: Did he call you about Doug Humphrey on the morning of July 11th
Nancy Barlow: Correct
Atty Penny: What is it that he wanted to communicate with you about Doug Humphrey that morning
Nancy Barlow: I would imagine that he knew that he was no longer the Community Officer at Millpond and that he wanted to express his point of view
Atty Penny: Is that in your statement regarding the conversation
Nancy Barlow: What he said to me in the conversation was “you’re going to like Bruce” and I again like I said I asked him “Who’s Bruce” – he said you know Bruce – and I said no Who’s Bruce
Atty Penny: Did he tell you in the conversation that Doug Humphrey was no longer assigned to your complex
Nancy Barlow: Ah – I believe he stated that he wasn’t there and like I stated to anyone else who asked me along with Steve Knibloe he resigned his position because that’s what he did.
Chairman Sherman: Any other questions?
Chairman Sherman: Alright at this time we will be going into the deliberations portion and I need a motion from the board
Atty Penny: Before you do that Mr. Chairman maybe we should consider whether or not it would be a benefit to the Commission to hear from other witnesses who I know are here and who have been mentioned in these statements and I feel it is appropriate – I notice Mr. Knibloe is here for example. It would be a good idea to get some information from him. Also, Officer Fahey is here, he’s been mentioned. Detective Carl is here to the extent that he’s been mentioned. I just want to make it clear to the commission these witnesses are available if you feel any evidence from them would assist you in the process of analyzing this evidence.
Chairman Sherman: Detective Carl, do you have anything to say with regards to this or what we have been talking about this evening.
At the request of Chairman Sherman, Detective Matthew Carl came forward to answer questions and/or give testimony
Chairman Sherman: Do any of the commissioners have any questions they wish to ask of Detective Carl in regard to this matter
Commissioner Devanney: The only question that I have is did you come down with the same conclusion that Sgt. Hannaford did, that Sgt. Drolett was not truthful in his statements made?
Detective Carl: Absolutely
Commissioner Barton: There have been some insinuations here that perhaps your investigation is clouded because you were a former victim, is that true?
Detective Carl: No that’s not true
Commissioner Barton: Can you say a little bit about your conclusions based on your interviews.
Detective Carl: Based on my second interview with Sgt. Drolett and asking questions of him, I feel that he was not truthful. He had rhetorical responses, his eyes act as cues, his physiological body mechanisms in the investigation led me to believe he was not truthful. He could not recall any facts whatsoever. In my training and experience, in my interviews in the past through all my criminal investigations that he had all the clues of someone that was showing deception.
Commissioner Devanney: Detective Carl, just for the record here, how many years have you been a detective
Detective Carl: I’ve been a detective for approximately, for a little over 3 years.
Chairman Sherman: Any other questions of the Detective
Atty Penny: Yes, I have some questions Mr. Chairman. Detective Carl, what specific type of training have you received in interrogations
Detective Carl: In the investigation field, basic interview and interrogation, advanced interview and interrogation, tactical interview and interrogation, truth vs. deceptive clues, various sexual assaults and narcotics investigations training, pretty extensive.
Atty Penny: Where have you received this training.
Detective Carl: Through the Institute of Police Technology and Management, Bo Mac which is a company out of New York that specializes in Police training, and the State of Connecticut.
Atty Penny: And approximately how many of these courses have you taken
Detective Carl: Training courses in an investigative capacity – umm – an estimate of 20 to 25
Atty Penny: And describe for us who teaches these courses.
Detective Carl: They’re ex-police officers, generally in the area of investigations. They would have had numerous experiences in investigations in large cities or areas of high volume where they would do criminal investigations in narcotics, things of that nature. Several doctors that hold Doctorate Degrees or Masters Degrees in the area of that field, basically experts in the areas of their field of interrogation or narcotics.
Atty Penny: How many interviews of Sgt. Drolett did you do as a detective
Detective Carl: One
Atty Penny: And where was that?
Detective Carl: I don’t recall
Atty Penny: Did you review the written reports filed by the investigating officer
Detective Carl: Yes
Atty Penny: What was the date of that interview
Detective Carl: September 10, 2005
Atty Penny: And who else was present at this interview
Detective Carl: Sgt. Michael Hannaford, Sgt. Jay Drolett and Officer Ray Fahey
Atty Penny: Any yourself?
Detective Carl: Any myself
Atty Penny: Was there some formality to this proceeding
Detective Carl: Sgt. Drolett was brought into the office, Sgt. Hannaford asked him if he still understood or wanted his garrity. Sgt. Drolett conceded the fact that he understood that he was still under his garrity, Sgt. Drolett was asked if he wanted Officer Fahey to sign a waiver of whether he had union representation or not, Sgt. Drolett conceded the fact that he wanted union representation and that Officer Fahey was the union representative and then I believe the signatures were obtained.
Atty Penny: Who was principally responsible for the conduct of the investigation or interrogation on that date
Detective Carl: Sgt. Hannaford
Atty Penny: There was some type of transcript or statement made – what officer made that statement
Detective Carl: Sgt. Hannaford
Atty Penny: What was your role in the proceeding
Detective Carl: Basically to ask questions, formulate some type of reasoning as to whether Sgt. Drolett could recall one or two of the statements made to the officer
Atty Penny: And yet Sgt. Hannaford was the investigating officer, why did he ask you to participate
Detective Carl: He asked me based on my training and experience in the areas of interview and interrogation, formulating questions by myself asking the questions, Sgt. Hannaford could concentrate on Sgt. Drolett’s body acts during the interviews, physiological behavior, responses, things of that nature
Atty Penny: As you indicated earlier, your statement here that there were aspects of Sgt. Drolett’s conduct during the interviews that led you to believe that he was not being entirely forthcoming in his responses to the questions, that a correct statement
Detective Carl: Yes
Atty Penny: Please be more specific about this point, please describe what you observed or what there was about Sgt. Drolett’s answers that led you to conclude that somehow or other was being evasive or untruthful and how did you characterize his conduct
Detective Carl: I started my interview with the fact that I tried to do what they call some type of cognitive recognition of what he’s doing, trying to take him through his day. One of the things that it does is it sparks the memory when somebody starts to realize what they’re doing at different times of the day so I would ask questions about when he left Cape Cod, whether it was light or dark out, I asked questions about whether he stopped for gas, or stopped for food, I asked him questions about where he stopped at his house. He would respond to the questions, like he stopped there, he stopped at a friend of his daughter’s house, he stopped at Wal Mart. I asked him different questions about that. Seemingly very simple questions that he would be able to answer. He always took the
middle of the road, couldn’t recall, he wasn’t sure, sometimes he went back to a question and answered it further after I had moved on, I asked him specific questions that I feel he should have been able to answer with very little recollection whatsoever and he was unable to do that. He answered me with rhetorical statements, paused, sometimes when I would challenge him slightly on whether he provided information, he would say I’ve already provided that, it’s already in my statement. I asked him if he could recall his statement for me as I wasn’t there during the first interview, things like that, his body posturing, his eyes, physiological responses, things like that I just determined that based on my training and experience and in the totality of the interview he wasn’t able to answer anything in the affirmative on whether he did anything or not.
Chairman Sherman: Any other questions of this Detective
Commissioner Barton: Regarding the call itself, was there any need, I guess, to determine, to access other records to determine the source of the phone call
Detective Carl: No. For my purposes of the interview I just wanted to see if he could recall making the phone call, if he could regurgitate or reiterate what he made on his first statement to Sgt. Hannaford in the first interview, and whether he would recognize or remember whether he made statements to Nancy Barlow about Officer Humphrey. I didn’t ask specifically about whether he could produce other records then as Sgt. Hannaford had already done so as it was his investigation.
Commissioner Barton: I guess what I’ m wondering is no matter how many records are provided would it still be possible to have made a phone call that is not in any records
Detective Carl: Absolutely. I mean Sgt. Drolett indicated to me that he had 5 cell phones
Commissioner Barton: But regardless of cell phones, which you have records, might he have had a phone card from Wal Mart, stopped at a pay phone
Detective Carl: I asked him that. Might he have made the phone call from a pay phone at his cottage at the Cape, side of the road, a buddy’s cell phone, from his home anywhere
Commissioner Barton: So it really wasn’t useful to pursue the issue of records
Detective Carl: No
Atty Penny – this might be a good time for me to report to the commission that I have issued a subpoena on behalf of the of SBC which is the telephone carrier for Millpond Village to determine from their records, to determine what calls were received at that location on July 11th The company does not keep those records directly, they have to reconcile them from their computer and they are doing that at this time, but they are not available for tonight’s proceedings
Commissioner Sinsigallo to Atty Penny: Do you think it’s imperative that we have that
Atty Penny to Commissioner Sinsigallo: I think that that’s a conclusion you can draw for yourselves based on the totality of the evidence that you hear, that it’s a critical aspect of your receipt of evidence that you want to wait for it to come out in the open, if not it can be considered insignificant in terms of what you heard, if you are prepared to wait or prepared to draw your conclusions.
Commissioner Sinsigallo: I have a question of Mr. Knibloe
Chairman Sherman: We’ll call him next
Chairman Sherman: Anything else for Detective Carl
Commissioner Simmons: Detective, do you feel that the initiation of this by a sergeant as before, that you could be fair and open minded in this investigation and could it have been resolved at the onset without coming to this
Detective Carl: Absolutely
Commissioner Simmons: How might that have happened
Detective Carl: Well, I don’t hand out discipline or anything at the Police Department, but it seems to me that in my training and experience and in my dealings with the union that if the statements were made and you were truthful about the statements and you came forward and said you were truthful in an internal or being asked directly by someone in an official capacity in the Police Department that you would prepare better, than whether you tried deceit or lie during an investigation or hearing
Chairman Sherman: Anything else from anybody?
Atty Brown: Detective, do you consider yourself a victim of charges previously made by Sgt. Drolett regarding your alleged dispute and malfeasance on the job an active threat.
Detective Carl: Yes
Atty Brown: And that charge was made within the past year, correct
Detective Carl: Yes
Atty Brown: Despite that victimization, you can be unbiased in any of your opinions presented to this commission
Detective Carl: Absolutely
Chairman Sherman: Any other questions? Thank you sir.
Chairman Sherman: Mr. Knibloe, please
Steve Knibloe, Executive Director of the East Windsor Housing Authority that has a percentage interest in the Millpond Village complex.
Commissioner Sinsigallo: My questions to you is on the day that you spoke with Ms. Barlow did she indicate at all to you that she might have spoken with Sgt. Drolett
Mr. Knibloe: No I have no knowledge if that. In fact she wouldn’t even tell me what the situation was with the officer that was previously assigned there.
Chairman Sherman: Is there any other questions?
Atty. Brown: On July 11th, Mr. Knibloe, did you call Ms. Barlow or did Ms. Barlow call you
Mr. Knibloe: I called
Atty Brown: do you recall what time of the day that it was that you called
Mr. Knibloe: I would probably say between 9:30 and 10:00 o’clock.
Atty Brown: Do you recall what the purpose of that phone call was
Mr. Knibloe: Yes
Atty Brown: What was the purpose
Mr. Knibloe: To ask what the situation was with Officer Humphrey
Atty Brown: and during that phone call did Ms. Barlow indicate to you that she had knowledge that Officer Everitt would be taking over that position
Mr. Knibloe: No sir, she wouldn’t tell me anything over the phone
Atty Brown: So she didn’t inquire what you knew about Officer Everitt
Mr. Knibloe: She wouldn’t tell me anything, she wouldn’t say anything
Atty Brown: How long did the conversation last?
Mr. Knibloe: Probably about 5 minutes at the most
Atty Brown: Did you make a statement to Ms. Barlow that the officer owed everybody money
Mr. Knibloe: No sir
Atty Brown: Did you ask Ms. Barlow if the problems with the officer had to do with the fact that he owed everybody money
Mr. Knibloe: Yes, no not in those words that he owed everybody, just that he owed money
Atty Brown: Did you say something to the effect of this statement to Ms. Barlow “ That the officer was starting programs that he did not finish
Mr. Knibloe: Correct
Atty Brown: And did you make the statement to Ms. Barlow having to do with the fact that the officer was shacking up with his girlfriend
Mr. Knibloe: That’s the information I received. That’s the question I asked, yes.
Atty Brown: Did you make a statement to her, Ms. Barlow, something to the effect that the officer was not on the property while on duty
Mr. Knibloe: I believe I asked her that, yes
Atty Brown: And what caused you to make each of these statements to Ms. Barlow
Mr. Knibloe: Information I received and my personal knowledge of Officer Humphrey
Atty Brown: Do you have a belief that the officer was not performing his duties appropriately at that location
Mr. Knibloe: Not until I received the phone call
Atty Brown: Who did you receive the phone call from
Mr. Knibloe: I don’t know
Atty Brown: You received a phone call from somebody telling you
Mr. Knibloe: Over the weekend
Atty Brown: Do you know if it was Officer Drolett, Sgt. Drolett who made the phone call
Mr. Knibloe: I don’t know who made the call
Atty Brown: The person did not identify himself or herself. Was it a male or female
Mr. Knibloe: It was a male, it could have been you for that matter, I don’t know
Atty Brown: It wasn’t
Mr. Knibloe: ok
Atty Brown: Did Ms. Barlow tell you the officer had resigned his position
Mr. Knibloe: No she wouldn’t say anything about that. I’m the one that asked and then made the statement, “I understand that Officer Humphrey is no longer assigned up there”
Atty Brown: Alright
Mr. Knibloe: So she wouldn’t tell me anything about that
Atty Brown: So she wouldn’t even acknowledge to you that the officer had resigned his position, correct
Mr. Knibloe: Correct
Atty Brown: That’s all I have
Chairman Sherman: Anything else
Atty Penny: I don’t know if I’m confused or not so let’s see if I can clarify it. I take it that somebody called you Mr. Knibloe over the weekend prior to July 11th and made certain accusations regarding Officer Humphrey to you.
Mr. Knibloe: That’s correct, it was Saturday – I can’t tell you the date – but it was Saturday.
Atty Penny: Was the context of those accusations that he had been dismissed or did the person say to you that he was no longer assigned at Millpond
Mr. Knibloe: I believe, a pretty close quote would be “Officer Humphrey is no longer the Millpond Officer and he was apparently caught shacking up” – that was the quote to me
Atty Penny: So I take it that on Monday morning the purpose of your call to Ms. Barlow was to seek some form of confirmation of this information
Mr. Knibloe: That’s correct and only because of our involvement in Millpond, the East Windsor Housing Authority. We are involved in Millpond.
Atty Penny: I take it, while as I recall some of the statements that are on this record they suggest that you were making accusations about Officer Humphrey, but you were just passing on information that had been communicated to you and that you were making an attempt to determine if those were the reasons why he was no longer assigned to Millpond Village
Mr. Knibloe: For the most part a couple, they weren’t accusations, they were statements of fact and I was aware of from my past dealings with Officer Humphrey
Atty Penny: I’m done with my questions
Chairman Sherman: Any other questions?
Commissioner Barton: These were questions of yours, not statements
Mr. Knibloe: That’s correct. The questions were “ would it have involved possibly misappropriation of funds”, “would it have involved not being on the property”, “would it have involved starting projects and not finishing them” – that’s how my conversation went. It wasn’t a statement of fact that it did involve that, because I didn’t know.
Commissioner Barton: But you did know, you already knew that Officer Humphrey had either resigned or somehow was no longer assigned
Mr. Knibloe: Only via this phone call and that wasn’t confirmation. However, although I wasn’t told anything when I called, just the fact of not being told anything told me that Officer Humphrey was no longer on the property.
Commissioner Barton: ok. Now Ms. Barlow told us that she told you that he resigned and that was all that she would tell you.
Mr. Knibloe: Well she said – no he’s not here – as far as I recollect.
That he resigned – it may be possible
Commissioner Barton: She told us a few minutes ago that had told you he had resigned and that was all she would tell you.
Mr. Knibloe: Yeah, she wouldn’t tell me anything. She could of told me he had resigned or just that he’s no longer on the property. I don’t remember the exact words that she said because she wouldn’t give me anymore information so I just kind of I suppose if I had gone up there because of my association with Millpond, or the Housing Authority’s association, if I went up there face to face she probably may have been able to talk. No I wasn’t sure if he had resigned or had been fired. That’s how I left it. She may have said he resigned.
Chairman Sherman: Any other questions. Thank you Mr. Knibloe
Chairman Sherman: Officer Fahey, would you come up for a minute please.
Officer Fahey, East Windsor Police
Chairman Sherman: Do any of the commissioners have any questions of Officer Fahey with regards to what he has to say
Commissioner Barton: Did you have a subsequent interview or conversation with these investigators after the interviews with Sgt. Drolett
Off. Fahey: Yes, I was asked what I meant by the word babbling, that I was heard saying
Commissioner Devanney: Did you feel you needed union representation at that time as was pointed out.
Commissioner Barton: What was your response to that?
Off Fahey: The response to that, to the investigators, was that I was extremely uncomfortable being called in as a union rep when I had no experience being a rep, that I had no idea whether to tell him to be quiet, to speak, or I had no idea what my powers as a union rep was. I was uncomfortable with it, and I referred to Sgt. Drolett’s babbling I didn’t know what to say, to be quiet, to continue that was how I was uncomfortable and then subsequent to that I was asked did I say that and I said yes, I did.
Commissioner Simmons: Officer, did you initiate going in to see the Detective and the Sergeant or did they call you in.
Off Fahey: I’m sorry – Sgt. Hannaford called me in
Commissioner Simmons: Sgt. Hannaford called you in for the express purpose of questioning
Officer Fahey: Matt Carl and I had a conversation in the hallway
Commissioner Simmons: Just an idle conversation
Officer Fahey: No, because I was uncomfortable being called in there not knowing what to do
Commissioner Simmons: Did he approach you or did you approach him
Officer Fahey: We met in the hallway - like what was that all about. Kind of joking with him because I couldn’t believe I was called in there
Chairman Sherman: Any other questions
Atty. Brown: Officer Fahey, do you recall how you came to be Sgt. Drolett’s union representative
Officer Fahey: Yeah, one morning Sgt. Drolett approached me and said I need you to come into Sgt. Hannaford’s office as the union rep.
Atty Brown: And you had never done this previously.
Officer Fahey: Never
Atty Brown: Did you make a statement to anybody that in that interview you believed Sgt. Drolett to be untruthful
Officer Fahey: During the interview with Sgt. Andrusco he asked under my professional opinion when somebody was answering in the method Sgt. Drolett was answering, how would I take that. And I believed I answered that I would take it as being deceptive or dishonest if it was John Q citizen
Atty Brown: Who’s Sgt. Andrusco
Officer Fahey: I meant Sgt. Hannaford
Atty Brown: When did you have this conversation with Sgt. Hannaford.
Officer Fahey: I don’t know the date – the date he called me into his office.
Atty Brown: You had one conversation with Sgt. Hannaford about the interview, correct
Officer Fahey: Correct
Atty Brown: And Sgt. Hannaford directly asked you if you believed that if somebody behaved the way that Sgt. Drolett had behaved was untruthful.
Officer Fahey: As I recall his questioning was as a trained police officer in internal investigations, not internal investigations, interrogations of a suspect, when a person answers in a method that I viewed, what would be my determination and I had to be as truthful as I could.
Atty Brown: And you said you had to answer, why did you say you had to answer
Officer Fahey: It’s my job
Atty Brown: What do you mean, “it’s my job”
Officer Fahey: In an internal investigation when you’re asked a question, you give an honest answer
Atty Brown: Did you feel like you were required to answer the question
Officer Fahey: Absolutely
Atty Brown: Did Sgt. Hannaford tell you were required to answer the question
Officer Fahey: Yes
Atty Brown: Did you feel you would be disciplined if you refused to answer the question, or subject to discipline
Officer Fahey: Absolutely
Atty Brown: Did you feel a conflict in the fact the only reason you were in the interview with Sgt. Drolett was as a Union Representative.
Officer Fahey: Correct
Atty Brown: You felt a conflict
Officer Fahey: Yeah, I was put into an uncomfortable situation
Atty Brown: And then when Sgt. Hannaford called you in and asked you for your opinion on truthfulness did you feel conflicted that you were asked that being that you were in there as a union rep
Officer Fahey: I didn’t consider that, as I have no experience as a union rep
Atty Brown: Did you believe you could have gotten up, walked away and not answered the question
Officer Fahey: No sir
Atty Brown: Did you ever tell Sgt. Hannaford that you believed Sgt. Drolett was being untruthful in his interview
Officer Fahey: I don’t recall saying that directly, no
Atty Brown: That’s all I have
Chairman Sherman: Any other questions? Thank you sir
Chairman Sherman: Now that we have exhausted the extra witnesses, I would like to move this into the next portion which would be the deliberations portion and it is a closed session so everybody will please exit the room.
A motion was made by Commissioner Sinsigallo, seconded by Commissioner Simmons to go into the closed portion of Executive Session for the purpose of deliberations of Internal Investigation 05-13 IA at 9:27 p.m. to include the Town Attorney, Steve Penny
Sinsigallo/Simmons Unanimous
A motion was made by Commissioner Sinsigallo, seconded by Commissioner Simmons to come out of the closed portion of Executive Session at 9:48 p.m.
Sinsigallo/Simmons Unanimous
ACTION TAKEN: A motion was made by Commissioner Sinsigallo, seconded by Commissioner Simmons that Internal Investigation 05-13 IA hearing is continued until receipt of the subpoenaed phone records. Hearing will remain open until records are received. At such time all parties will be properly notified.
Sinsigallo/Simmons Unanimous
Chairman Sherman: The second portion of this evening will be on regards to Internal Investigation 05-15 IA of October 7, 2005, reference Violation of the Rules and Regulations and Departmental Directives of the East Windsor Police Department
Chairman Sherman: At this time I would like to turn the meeting over to Capt. Duffy
Capt. Duffy, East Windsor Police Department, Operations Manager
Capt Duffy: On October 3rd of this year the Chief of Police provided me with a letter that had been addressed to him by Sgt. Drolett. This letter alleges that a conversation occurred on September 27th of this year at approximately 12 hundred hours between 3 members of the Department in the hallway outside the Detective’s office. This conversation concerned the recent hurricane and flooding in New Orleans. Sgt. Drolett alleges that one of the individuals involved made a racially sensitive comment in front of two supervisors. I was directed to investigate this allegation and come to a conclusion whether discipline was merited as to the contents of the statement.
As a result I arranged to interview the three individuals, Det. Carl, Sgt. Hannaford and Chief DeMarco who were identified by Sgt. Drolett as being involved in this conversation Statements were obtained in which the three individuals admitted to there being a conversation regarding the hurricane and the flooding in New Orleans but there had been no racial comment made. Conversations concerning Detective Carl’s opinion as to whether the city should be rebuilt in its present location and whether it was fiscally responsible. I arranged for an interview with Sgt. Drolett as the complainant, he verbally stated that he did not submit the letter as a formal complaint but as information in the event there was a future complaint of this kind. He did not wish to give me a written, sworn statement. I
did not order a statement from Sgt. Drolett. He was treated as any other complainant.
As a result of the following information:
Statements obtained from the individuals named, lack of a statement from Sgt. Drolett,
No history involving the three individuals with racial incidents in the past, recent disciplinary action taken against Sgt. Drolett by this Commission, an IA investigation that was on-going at the time of the allegation and the lack of action taken by Sgt. Drolett – it should be noted that Sgt. Drolett would have the same obligation to take corrective action concerning the “racial statement” – he took none. I exonerated the three individuals named in Sgt. Drolett’s letter on 10/6/05. On 10/7/05 I reviewed the file and made a determination that Sgt. Drolett provided false information when he formulated his letter and sent it to the Chief of Police as a department document. It was, as is my belief, that this document was submitted in retaliation against the three individuals named in his
letter. This retaliation is due to their involvement in the previous investigation which resulted in disciplinary discipline being issued by the Police Commission. In the IA investigation into his statements concerning a fellow officer and the allegations that he provided false information to investigators during their investigation. As a result I submitted a letter to Sgt. Drolett on 10/7/05 that he was being charged with the following sections of the Police Manual: Falsification of a report, 11-03-00, Conduct Unbecoming , 14.03.00, Employee Misconduct and Departmental Operational Directives 1-9 Code of Ethics.
He was advised he was to report to this Commission on 10/12/05 for a disciplinary hearing. The hearing was rescheduled to 11/02/05 with a letter sent advising him of the new date on 10/19/05. I was advised that Sgt. Drolett was to be notified that he could speak with me further on this charges and a third letter was sent on 10/24/05.
Chairman Sherman: Do the commissioners have anything to ask with regards to this? Attorney Brown?
Atty. Brown: Yeah. Capt. How did you come to be the investigator involved as the officer of this complaint
Capt. Duffy: I was assigned by the Chief of Police
Atty Brown: And when you were assigned did the Chief of Police provide you with any documentation
Capt. Duffy: Just the letter that Sgt. Drolett had sent
Atty Brown: And following the notification that you would be conducting the investigation, you took steps to arrange interviews with the parties involved, correct
Capt. Duffy: Yes
Atty Brown: And so you notified Detective Carl, Sgt. Hannaford and Chief DeMarco that you would want to interview them, is that correct
Capt. Duffy: Yes
Atty Brown: And how did you notify them that you wanted to interview them
Capt Duffy: We have several IA forms and I used one of the IA forms which specifically directs somebody who is under investigation that they are to report to me
Atty Brown: And did you advise in the IA form what the purpose of the investigation was
Capt. Duffy: Yes, for the purpose of clarity the letter in which Sgt. Drolett alleges that a racially insensitive comment was made was attached
Atty Brown: So you notified each of the employees, each of the three employees on October 3rd that a complaint had been made against them
Capt. Duffy: Yes
Atty Brown: And you notified them of the substance of the complaint
Capt. Duffy: Yes
Atty Brown: You told them you would interview them between the day and 2 or 3 days after the day of the notification, correct
Capt. Duffy: Yes
Atty. Brown: Did you advise them that they were not to discuss this matter among themselves prior to their interviews?
Capt. Duffy: No
Atty Brown: Did you ever ask them if they had discussed this matter amongst themselves prior to the interview
Capt. Duffy: No
Atty Brown: Do you know whether or not they discussed this matter amongst themselves prior to the interview
Capt. Duffy: No I do not
Atty Brown: Would it be problematic, do you believe, to the investigation if these individuals discussed this matter subsequent to notification of the IA investigation but prior to the interview
Capt. Duffy: I don’t believe that anything they would say wouldn’t be information they didn’t already have
Atty Brown: Is it possible that they might get together to try to make sure their stories coincide
Capt Duffy: The probability of that is not likely. If it was a situation where all three if them came into my office and said yes the statement was made it probably wouldn’t have resulted in anything more than counseling sessions
Atty Brown: The allegation is that one of the Detectives made the statement “they should rebuild the dikes in Louisiana, move everyone back in, and blow them back open and just call it a racial cleansing”, correct
Capt. Duffy: That is the statement that was alleged.
Atty Brown: Did you ever ask the officer who was alleged to have made the statement whether or not in fact he did make the statement with respect to racial cleansing.
Capt. Duffy: Yes
Atty Brown: Did he deny it
Capt. Duffy: Yes he did
Atty Brown: And is it specifically denied in his statement
Capt. Duffy: I believe it is
Atty Brown: Did you ever specifically ask this officer who is alleged to have made this statement, whether or not he made the statement “they should call it a racial cleansing”
Capt. Duffy: I think he made the response to me that he made no racial statements
Atty Brown: But you never directly asked him about the “racial cleansing” statement
Capt. Duffy: No, not specifically. He was asked what the conversation consisted of, gave me the contents and told me specifically that no racial comments were made
Atty Brown: Did you ask the Sergeant who was involved in the conversation, directly whether he had heard the other officer make the statement concerning racial cleansing,
Capt. Duffy: He was asked to give me the contents of the conversation which he did and his statement was that he had never heard such a statement
Atty Brown: Did you ever ask him the question directly or did he just write the statement in response to your general question about the conversation
Capt. Duffy: In response to a general question about the comment
Atty Brown: Did you ever ask the Chief he ever heard a statement made about racial cleansing
Capt. Duffy: He was asked the same thing – what was the general content of the conversation and whether any racially insensitive comment was made. He said no.
Atty Brown: Now you stated in your statement to the commission that you believed the reason Sgt. Drolett sent this letter to the Chief was in retaliation for the investigation that had been conducted with respect to IA-13, correct
Capt. Duffy: That was part of it.
Atty Brown: Does it make sense to you that if Sgt. Drolett wanted to retaliate that he would send his letter to the Chief of Police rather than to some public entity, like the newspaper or a television station
Capt. Duffy: To be perfectly honest with you I couldn’t tell you what was going through Sgt. Drolett’s mind.
Atty Brown: Does it make sense to you that Sgt. Drolett would make a statement that this type of racially insensitive remark was made when there were 3 witnesses to it that could easily refute the statement.
Capt. Duffy: Still, I cannot tell you what was going through Sgt. Drolett’s mind
Atty Brown: If Sgt. Drolett did hear this statement regarding racial cleansing, he had an obligation as a Police Officer in the Town of East Windsor to report it, correct
Capt. Duffy: He also had an obligation to stop and take action if the statement was made. He has the same obligation as any other supervisor that was there to stop and take corrective action, which he did not do
Atty Brown: Even if the Chief of Police was a party to the conversation, he has an obligation to correct the Chief of Police
Capt. Duffy: He has the same obligation, the correction would be to the person making the statement
Atty Brown: Even if the Chief of Police was present
Capt. Duffy: Even if the Chief of Police was present
Atty Brown: Do you agree that a failure to take action could subject him to discipline if he heard this statement made
Capt. Duffy: It would probably result, as I told you earlier, with a counseling session
Atty Brown: And you believe that if the officer did make the statement that he should call it a racial cleansing. Making that statement should result in a counseling session
Capt. Duffy: It would result in the bare minimum in a counseling session
Atty Brown: Have you ever heard the officer who was alleged to have made the racially insensitive statement make racially insensitive statements prior to making this racially insensitive statement
Capt. Duffy: No I have not
Atty Brown: That’s all I have
Chairman Sherman: Do any of the commissioners have any other questions – Atty Penny for verification
Chairman Sherman: At this time we will go into the closed portion
Commissioner Devanney: Can we ask a question first
Chairman Sherman: Sure, that’s what I asked you
Commissioner Devanney: I don’t know who to start with – I guess Detective Carl
Commissioner Devanney: This is a follow-up to the attorneys question – did you meet with Sgt. Hannaford and the Chief at any time before Capt. Duffy’s interview to collaborate on your stories on this investigation
Detective Carl: No
Commissioner Devanney: On the statement you wrote in regards to the racial slur here you said “I stated they should blow the levies and allow it to flow free into the sea” This statement had nothing to do with the people but my feelings about the buildings below sea level. Is this correct?
Detective Carl: Yes
Commissioner Devanney: That’s all I have
Chairman Sherman: Does anybody have any more questions
Commissioner Simmons: Did you ever hear in that conversation words “racial cleansing” at all
Detective Carl: Did I ever hear
Commissioner Simmons: Anyone, any such words as “racial cleansing”
Detective Carl: No not at all
Commissioner Barton: Do you recall Sgt. Drolett walking by and exactly where was this in the department
Detective Carl: I was standing in the hallway in front of – well in my office door in the hallway as you walk in the back door of the employee entrance – right there. Sgt. Hannaford and Chief DeMarco were standing in the hallway.
Commissioner Barton: So this is a small hallway near the rear entrance
Detective Carl: Yes
Commissioner Barton: How far away from everyone else
Detective Carl: Approximately three feet, four feet
Commissioner Barton: And what was Sgt. Drolett doing – coming or going
Detective Carl: Just walking past
Commissioner Barton: leaving the building
Detective Carl: I believe he was leaving the building, yes
Commissioner Barton: Was his path impeded in any way
.Detective Carl: No
Commissioner Barton: How long did it take him to walk down the hallway
Detective Carl: Seconds
Chairman Sherman: Any other questions
Commissioner Devanney: The Chief.
Commissioner Devanney: I’m going to ask you the same question that I asked Detective Carl - did you meet with Detective Carl or Sgt. Hannaford to discuss the incident in order to collaborate on your story
Chief DeMarco: No
Chairman Sherman: Any other questions of the Chief
Commissioner Simmons: Chief, the same question did you hear the words from anyone at all – “racial cleansing” within that conversation
Chief DeMarco: There were no racial comments made and as the Chief of Police I in fact disciplined the very person accused of doing this, making a different comment. I suspended him for a day. If he had said something I would have suspended him
Chairman Sherman: Any other questions of the Chief
Atty Penny: Chief, relating to a disciplinary matter a couple of months ago – I take it Detective Carl was suspended for a day for a making a comment
Chief DeMarco: Correct
Atty Penny: Did this incident involve a racial comment
Chief DeMarco: I have never heard any racial comment
Chairman Sherman: Any other questions? Any questions of anybody
Commissioner Barton: How about Sgt. Drolett
Before answering any questions, Sgt. Drolett asked for a short recess to confer with his attorney. Sgt. Drolett and his attorney exited the room at 10:10 p.m. and returned to the room at 10:15 p.m.
Chairman Sherman: State your name please
Sgt. J Ronald Drolett, East Windsor Police Department
Jim Barton
Commissioner Barton: Sgt. Drolett during this incident were you coming in or leaving the building at this time
Sgt. Drolett: I was leaving the building
Commissioner Barton: And the three individuals were in the hallway
Sgt. Drolett: Detective Carl, Chief DeMarco and Sgt Hannaford
Commissioner Barton: And you walked by? How long did that take
Sgt. Drolett: Not an extensive period of time, a brief moment
Commissioner Barton: Were they loud in the discussion they were having
Sgt. Drolett: Excessively loud, no talking in a normal conversation, normal tone
Commissioner Barton: And you were able to hear this entire sentence – they should rebuild the dikes in Louisiana move everybody back in and blow them back open and just call it a racial cleansing during the moment that you walked by
Sgt. Drolett: Um – that’s sort of exactly what happened. I might have slowed down a little bit to open up the door, but due to the size of the hallway I wouldn’t be walking at a rapid pace.
Commissioner Barton: So you felt you had an obligation to report this
Sgt. Drolett: Unfortunately I did. I thought long and hard about it. In my previous discipline one of the issues that was brought up was that I had an obligation to report things up the chain of command. I would much rather have ignored it to tell you the truth
Commissioner Barton: You didn’t feel as the Captain states that you had an obligation to take some sort of action at that time.
Sgt. Drolett: Not with the Chief there. He would be the one to take action. There was another sergeant there, he would be equally responsible to take action.
Chairman Sherman: Any other questions
Commissioner Simmons: Sergeant, how do you feel about the Chief’s statement and the Detective’s statement that no such racial slur was made, how do you feel about that.
Sgt. Drolett: That no such slur was made
Commissioner Simmons: Yes, how do you feel about that
Sgt. Drolett: Well, I find it odd - I believe in the Chief’s statement. He left out the part about the dikes being blown open and
Commissioner Simmons: I asked you specifically about the racial comment that was made, and the fact that they denied it. It was a simple question to both the Chief and the Detective. They said no such comment was made, any color, any shape any comments or anything of a racial slur. What do you think of that? What is your opinion of their simple statement of that point?
Sgt. Drolett: A simple statement on that point – look at all three statements and little discrepancies pop up – you’ll see little discrepancies in all three statements. All four people, myself included, apparently heard the conversation exactly the same.
Commissioner Simmons: So you’re not sure what you heard.
Sgt. Drolett: I believe and I believed it at the time I presented the letter to the Chief that was my understanding of the conversation.
Commissioner Simmons: Did you consider as you were momentarily walking by to say “hey what did I just hear” – did you think to do that to say “did someone saying something racial here, did I hear something”
Sgt. Drolett: I thought to myself
Commissioner Simmons: But you didn’t
Sgt. Drolett: I can’t believe that they’re openly talking about this in the hallway where we have contact with someone coming in or out
Commissioner Simmons: So in your belief and recollection they did make this racial slur
Sgt. Drolett: Right – that is my clear understanding of the conversation.
Commissioner Simmons: What is your opinion, should you have done anything then, at that point
Sgt. Drolett: Um – no answer
Commissioner Simmons: That’s a serious thing
Sgt. Drolett: I was a little bit in disbelief but I was sure that by the same token that
Commissioner Simmons: It didn’t draw your attention to ask a question, or to inquire, just to keep walking out the door.
Sgt. Drolett: I frankly, quite honestly, didn’t want to be involved in anything, didn’t want to know nothing, I would have preferred to ignore everything. Unfortunately
Commissioner Simmons: Do you think those are good sergeant’s qualities
Sgt. Drolett: No it’s not and that’s why I finally had to report it because I do have an obligation to follow through and that’s the only reason I did it and I really did not want to because I knew that those are three people I have always had a problem with and it just – you know – I had a no win situation – I had a responsibility and obligation to follow through, I didn’t like it, I didn’t want to have to do it, but I felt I had no choice.
Commissioner Sinsigallo: You just made a statement that those are three people who I always had a problem with. Could you define what your problems were with them
Sgt. Drolett: It’s not always – it’s already have a problem with and the problem is the initial letter I wrote about which involved the Chief and Detective Carl primarily and that whole situation involving my previous suspension and all that stuff
Atty Penny: The letter you described, is that the letter of October 29th where you describe “a hostile work environment”
Commissioner Barton in response to Atty Penny’s question of Sgt. Drolett: No he’s talking about the previous disciplinary action and suspension
Commissioner Sinsigallo: I do have a question about that “hostile work environment” letter. What prompted you to write that?
Sgt. Drolett: Excuse me, what made me write that? Because coming to work I was physically ill, did not want to be at work, I really felt that I was being unfairly picked on, harassed and I think if you go through the hostile work environment letter and relate it to DOD point 604 under policy – it says all reported incidents of harassment of police department employees – underlined – will be promptly and thoroughly investigated and that letter was not investigated at all – it was totally disregarded. That just goes to show clearly that anything I do is treated differently than anything anyone else does. You can go further into it – you look at the back of the IA report there’s a e-mail in there by uh
Commissioner Barton: Which letter was not investigated
Sgt. Drolett: The hostile work environment letter. If you look under this DOD here, apparently when the DOD involves me as a victim, they don’t apply. It says right there they will be investigated
Commissioner Sinsigallo: Alright, there’s a letter right here from Chief DeMarco saying we received your letter in which you report a hostile work environment and a lack of an impartial internal investigation due to various allegations you make against I have reviewed and carefully considered your letter, and I strongly disagree with the content.
Sgt. Drolett: A review is not an investigation. An investigation is unbiased
Commissioner Sinsigallo: Apparently there wasn’t enough evidence to substantiate an investigation – is that correct Chief
Chief DeMarco: Correct, it didn’t warrant an investigation and I promptly responded to him in writing
Sgt. Drolett: So that it will be promptly and thoroughly investigated doesn’t apply. That wasn’t an investigation – at best it was a review and that’s what it says here in this letter – review not investigate
Commissioner Sinsigallo: That’s your opinion
Chairman Sherman: Are there any other questions of the sergeant?
Atty Brown: Sergeant, at the time you sent this letter to Chief DeMarco, you were fully aware of the ramifications you would suffer if you were found to have made a false statement, correct
Sgt. Drolett: Yes
Atty Brown: You were aware you could be disciplined if it was discovered you had made a false statement, correct
Sgt. Drolett: Correct
Atty Brown: So it would have been a little crazy of you to have written this letter to the Chief who was a party to the conversation making allegations about racial comments if you believe the Chief was going to go on the record and refute those allegations, correct
Sgt. Drolett: Correct
Atty Brown: At the time you sent the letter to the Chief did you have a belief that the statement you made in the letter was true
Sgt. Drolett: Yes, I do
Atty. Brown: Did you believe it at the time you sent the letter
Sgt. Drolett: Yes I did
Atty Brown: That’s all I have
Chairman Sherman: Are there any other questions
Atty Penny: Yes. Sergeant how long is the hallway in which the conversation of September 27th took place
Sgt. Drolett: I would guess 20 or 30 ft – I honestly don’t know
Atty Penny: How close were the three participants in that conversation to the door outside
Sgt. Drolett: Probably in the range of 3 feet
Atty Penny: And when did you first become aware of the conversation they were having – where were you when you first tuned into that conversation
Sgt. Drolett: I really don’t know Somewhere within the hall after I rounded the corner.
Atty Penny: As best as you can recall, do you remember overhearing the conversation as you were rounding the corner or were you further up the hallway
Sgt. Drolett: I don’t know exactly where I heard the conversation – only that I heard it
Atty Penny: When you first heard the conversation, and I understand in a fashion that you were rounding the corner, how long thereafter would you have been focused on the conversation – how long would it take you to traverse that hallway
Sgt. Drolett: As I said previously, time wise I don’t have an exact number, but not that long
Atty Penny: Now that hallway is within the department is it not
Sgt. Drolett: Yes it is
Atty Penny: How long has the department been located in that facility
Sgt. Drolett: Probably 15 or 16 years
Atty Penny: And you have been an employee of the department during that entire time, have you not
Sgt. Drolett: Yes I have
Atty Penny: Do you use that hallway regularly
Sgt. Drolett: Yes I do
Atty Penny: So you’re probably able to give me some kind of estimate on how long it would take you to walk that hallway at a normal pace
Sgt. Drolett: I don’t think I ever gave it much thought – how long it takes to walk it – 3,4 or 5 seconds I don’t really know. We could go to the hallway and walk it if you would like
Atty Penny: What did you hear in that time frame, 3,4 or 5 seconds? What else of the conversation did you hear and not report in your letter
Sgt. Drolett: Actually, that’s all I recall hearing
Atty Penny: Just the one sentence
Sgt. Drolett: What I wrote in that letter is what I recall hearing.
Atty Penny: Your wrote one sentence in your letter, so you overheard this one sentence they should rebuild the dikes in Louisiana, move everybody back in, blow them up and call it racial cleansing
Sgt. Drolett: Correct
Atty Penny: You didn’t hear any other part of the conversation – did you hear any of the statements that made have been made before that sentence or after the sentence
Sgt. Drolett: There is nothing specific
Atty Penny: Do you recall hearing any other elements of the conversation. You wrote your letter regarding the conversation on September 28th, you wrote your letter within 24 hours of hearing the conversation, is that correct
Sgt. Drolett: Correct
Atty Penny: Then it was another 24 hours and you wrote the hostile work letter
Sgt. Drolett: Correct
Atty Penny: Is there a relationship between these two letters
Sgt. Drolett: The hostile work environment letter is a letter I had been working on for awhile and just finally got around to mailing it off
Atty Penny: So it’s just a matter of coincidence that the hostile work environment letter of September 29th specifically relates your concerns with respect to your relationship with Detective Carl and Sgt. Hannaford and they were two of the three individuals involved in this conversation that you wrote about the day before. It was just a coincidence
Sgt. Drolett: Yes as far as when they arrived
Atty Penny: As far as when they were written
Sgt Drolett: Like I said the hostile work environment was one I had started sometime before and I was just trying to deal with things.
Atty Penny: Given your concerns with Detective Carl and Sgt. Hannaford being involved in any internal investigation in which you might be the respondent was there anyone else within the department after September 29th that you expect would be a more objective investigator of your conduct in the event that there was a future internal investigation of the East Windsor Police Department involving you
Sgt. Drolett: Actually. Yeah there are other officers that I would consider more objective, more unbiased and more qualified.
Atty Penny: If we were to eliminate Detective Carl and Sgt. Hannaford from that process, who else in the department here now is trained to hear an internal investigation – who would be a more appropriate person to review your conduct in this matter
Sgt. Drolett: I don’t know exactly what you are trying to get at
Atty Penny: The officers you had in mind – but you don’t know any of them who are trained in this specific task
Sgt. Drolett: Yeah I believe Sgt Andrusco is trained in internal investigation
Atty Penny: To your knowledge given the length of time you’ve been involved in police work is there a particular skill involved in conducting internal investigations – does it require some specialized training
Sgt Drolett: Ah – you don’t have to have specialized training. I have conducted internal investigations in the past and I have had no specific training
Atty Penny: Has your relationship with Capt. Duffy over the years been such that you would include him amongst those that you have concerns with such as Detective Carl and Sergeant Hannaford?
Sgt. Drolett: Ah – initially I didn’t have any concerns but when I got that letter that I received yesterday from Capt. Duffy dated October 24th which gave me the opportunity to come and talk to him which I believe he mentioned earlier – I found that kind of odd because between October 7th and October 23rd, I worked several shifts and I did have contact with Capt. Duffy. That letter was received on October 24th which is the first day of my days off for a vacation. As a matter of fact I have the schedule right here – I was off for a total of 8 days – my first day back was yesterday November 1st which would have been the day I received the letter and the first opportunity I had to talk to Capt. Duffy. I came in early that day,
but Capt. Duffy must have been on other business so on Thursday morning prior to the meeting which I would have been able to sit down with Capt. Duffy and discuss it with him like he offered he was unavailable for me to sit down with. I don’t know why he waited until I was scheduled for extended leave time to present that opportunity.
Atty Penny: Probably Capt. Duffy interviewed you with respect to the letter regarding the dikes in New Orleans – the time of the interview you were not a respondent to that investigation, correct
Sgt. Drolett: I believe on October 7th was when he notified me that I was in fact the one being investigated – that would have applied.
Atty Penny: However, he interviewed you prior to October 7th did he not
Sgt. Drolett: Yes he did, but not as the one being investigated.
Atty Penny: Not as the one being investigated. At the time that he met with you he was investigating the comments of Detective Carl, Sergeant Hannaford and Chief DeMarco
Sgt. Drolett: Correct
Atty Penny: So I’m not sure this is any great moment but perhaps it will allay your concerns if I tell you I advised Capt. Duffy because of the only opportunity that you had to give input was at the time when you were not a respondent and now by virtue of the court, you are the respondent to the charge issued and affords you another opportunity to make a statement. Do you accept that as likely that that’s the reason why you subsequently got a letter instructing you restraint.
Sgt. Drolett: And it didn’t come until I was no longer available – I don’t know when he notified
Atty Penny: As of when were you no longer available
Sgt. Drolett: I physically copied the schedule. The last day that I worked was October 23rd - the letter was dated the 24th – I returned November 1st
Atty Penny: And how did he deliver the letter to you
Sgt. Drolett: The letter was in my mail slot at work when I returned to work
Atty Penny: So you didn’t know the letter was there until November 1st
Sgt. Drolett: November 1st – yesterday
Atty Penny: No further questions.
Chairman Sherman: Any other questions? Thank you Sergeant
A motion was made by Commissioner Sinsigallo, seconded by Commissioner Simmons to go into the closed portion of Executive Session for the purpose of deliberations on Internal Investigation 05-15 IA to include the Town Attorney, Steve Penny at 10:30 p.m.
Sinsigallo/Simmons Unanimous
A motion was made by Commissioner Sinsigallo, seconded by Commissioner Simmons to come out of the closed portion of Executive Session at 10:43 p.m.
Sinsigallo/Simmons Unanimous
ACTION TAKEN: A motion was made by Commissioner Barton, seconded by Commissioner Sinsigallo to continue the hearing into 05-15IA until such time as a special meeting is scheduled to deliberate 05-13 IA.
Barton/Sinsigallo Unanimous
Chairman Sherman: At this time I would like to make one request – of the union and Atty. Brown. When you requested the continuance for this meeting, you spoke to me on the phone I specifically asked you to send me a request and I got a response to what you had said you were going to send me, a copy of your letter to the Chief demanding a continuance which is not what I wanted and I thought you understood that and I thought the gentleman from the Union, the Union President also understood it and all he gave me was a letter saying that he acknowledges the postponement. Every time that I go to my Commission members and I ask them that we’ve been asked to postpone this, I want something to be able to back up what I’m requesting – I mean I got a phone call. Yes, I got a phone call from you
and I also had talked to the Town Attorney prior to that and that was one of the reasons why I asked you so that I can show my commission members that I do have something officially requesting this. Can we get this, can I get that?
Atty Brown: You’ve already granted the continuance
Chairman Sherman: I know I got it, but even if it’s in hindsight I would like it only so that all of my documentation. Because right now all I have are pencil notes on a piece of paper that I go a phone call.
Atty Brown: I don’t know if your purpose was to chastise me in public or to embarrass me
Chairman Sherman: I’m not trying to chastise you – I’m just asking you
Atty Brown: If you wanted it all you had to do was make a phone call and ask for it.
Chairman Sherman: I asked you over the phone when you had called.
Atty Brown: Obviously it was an oversight on my part Mr. Chairman and I will send you the letter.
Chairman Sherman: Thank you I would appreciate it.
ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Commissioner Sinsigallo, seconded by Commissioner Simmons to adjourn the special meeting of the East Windsor Police Commission at 10:55 p.m.
Sinsigallo/Simmons Unanimous
Respectfully submitted,
Darlene H. Kelly
Recording Secretary
| 
