All the other mics are okay. The following is agenda for the special Burough Council meeting in Burough Cons mayor council and municipal corporation in the county of the state. The meeting will begin at 5:30 p.m. on May 11th, 2026 in the municipal building 25 L
Avenue Compton Links consisting of the open public meetings app. The meeting will be open for public comments and shall be according to the terms and conditions of the burough municipal code. >> Please stand for a flag salute to the flag of the United States of
America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. In conformance with the open public meeting law, public law 1975 chapter 231, adequate notice of this meeting
setting forth the time, date, place, and purpose of the special meeting through notice posted on the Bolton board in the municipal building mailed to all have requested and purchase and pursuant to PL 2025 and the applicant's provision of title 40 andor title 40A of the New
Jersey statute governing legal notice and advertising electronically of official websites of the burrow of pmpton links. Roll call, please. >> Mayor >> here. >> Council President >> here. >> Council >> here. >> Councilman Cruz >> here. >> Council
>> here. Council >> here. >> Councilman >> here. >> With us this evening is our attorney Lauro and our administrator Michael. >> Okay. Thank you everyone. Okay. I'm sorry. >> Anthony. >> Thank you everyone for attending. Uh
unfortunately we're going to go into a close session for about five or 10 minutes. So, I'm going to have to ask everybody to step out of the room. I was going to move ourselves out so you guys could stay, but there was no place for us to all fit. So, unfortunately, I'm going to have to ask everybody to step out into the hallway. We'll call you right back in as soon as we're done. Um,
I appreciate that. Thank you so much. >> No, I'm not recording. Mayor, I think procedurally you need a motion. >> Oh, I'm just wait. Okay. request. All right, we're going to get started
because it's going to take some time. Uh, can I have a motion to journ to open session? >> Motion. >> Councilman Bennett. >> Second. >> Councilman Santers. All in favor? I >> against. All right. I'm going to just give us some some simple gap ground rules before we start. The next part will be a public session where anybody can get up and
speak. You have uh roughly five minutes to say say what you like to say. Give us your name if you'd like, where you live if you'd like. Uh so I have something to respond to. After everybody talks, then I'll close that session and then there'll be a discussion uh about the procedures that we're here to talk about from the attorneys. With that, can I
have a motion to open the public session? >> Motion. >> Councilman Hinton, Councilman Cruz. All in favor? >> Okay. Okay. Anybody from the public who'd like to just raise your hand or come on up? Come on up to 5:30 Monday night, May 11th.
As of this moment, Ryan Sichon is the only captain in the Pmpton Lakes Police Department. If you fire him tonight, there will be two available captain's positions. The clear choice for promotion is
Lieutenant Mike Klepaki, who has more seniority and higher test scores than anyone in the department, including the chief, and has been passed over already. His test score, one of the highest in the
state, is valid until midnight tonight. Tomorrow, you can do the same thing you did with Mr. Rodriguez. Eliminate all competition for the remaining lieutenants,
one of whom is the mayor's son-in-law. This has to stop. There's a lot at stake for a number of people. Please be true to your oath of office and be honest with the people of Pompton
Lakes. >> Thank you. Anyone else like to speak? >> Going once. Going twice. Please step up. Uh, respectfully, I uh exceed the 5m minute limit. I just want to make sure that's not going to be an issue. Just have a couple things I have to say. And >> you said you want to go over the five
minute. >> Yeah, I may go over five minutes. >> Okay. As long as it's not a lot, but yeah, that's >> 20 minutes. Don't worry. >> Okay. >> For as long as I can remember, I wanted to be a police officer. I remember being a fifth grader at Lincoln Elementary School and taking part in the DARE
program with Officer M. Even then, I knew my calling was law enforcement. I love the idea of fighting crime and making the community safer. For 10 years, this job brought me tremendous joy and gave me a deep sense of purpose. I truly felt I was put on this earth to
be part of the Pontton Lakes Police Department. I made countless arrests, wrote thousands of tickets, and did everything in my power to horn my craft. I love covering overtime shifts, reading case law, and studying the attorney general guidelines in my days off. None
of it ever felt like work. I dedicated myself to the job, and it paid off with promotions, accolades, and most importantly, the respect of my co-workers. In 2017, I witnessed an incident involving a supervisor and felt compelled to report it through the
proper channels. I did not necessarily want to get involved, but I believed I had an obligation to do the right thing. That decision changed the entire trajectory of my career. After being promoted to captain in 2019, the individual who I had reported had taken
over the police department and my professional life changed drastically. The job I once loved became unbearable. My mental and physical health suffered immensely. Day after day, I was berated, demeaned, undermined, ridiculed, subjected to heightened scrutiny, and
micromanage. There were condescending emails, bits of rage, the silent treatment, countless writeups, unprecedented performance improvement plans, poor evaluations, never- ending internal affairs investigations, restrictions on who I could speak with,
limitations on responding to calls for service, and the stripping away of my responsibilities. After being promoted three times in 10 years and previously being regarded as one of the most competent officers in the department, it suddenly appeared as though I had become the worst officer in the world overnight. That weighed
heavily on me. I spent years walking on eggshells while constantly trying to avoid being the subject of the next internal investigation. Prior to this, I had never needed an attorney for anything, but for six straight years, I had one on speed dial to address the ongoing complaints that
were being filed against me by my chief. There were many sleepless nights where I stared at the ceiling asking myself, "What did I do to deserve this? Getting out of bed became a struggle. Most days I felt physically ill while driving to work." This routine continued for years.
I sought help from the burrow, internal affairs, the prosecutor's office, and the union. But no one was willing or able to meaningfully intervene. Chief Clark was permitted to run rampant for years with no oversight. Eventually, I came to the realization that there were
only two possible outcomes. Resign or wait to be terminated. I could not bring myself to walk away from everything I had worked for. So, I stayed and I endured it, knowing there was never going to be a happy ending for it. I was forced to accept the fact this was my life and there was absolutely nothing I
could do about it. In 2023, I briefly saw a glimmer of hope. At the time, I was facing a lengthy suspension uh for my attendance at a training course and for failing to advise Chief Clark that an employee was upset with him regarding something that he had said about her. My
attorney sent numerous letters to the bureau raising concerns about the retaliation and harassment I had experienced while also discussing potential litigation. As a result, discussions took place and a settlement was reached. I personally made only two requests regarding the settlement agreement. First, I requested a meeting
with the burough administrator in the May. That meeting took place on October 20th where I openly expressed my concerns and reviewed what I had experienced over the years. Second, I requested a meeting with the chief and a mediator because I genuinely wanted to repair our relationship and move forward
in a professional and productive manner. I never asked for special treatment. I just wanted to be treated fairly. Instead of scheduling that mediation session, three new disciplinary charges were initiated against me within a month. In my opinion, those charges were purposely intended to ruin my career. I
could stand here for hours discussing the investigative issues, procedural concerns, and inconsistencies involved in this matter, but this is not the time or the place for that debate. This case was never truly about battery backups, overtime approvals, or jail cell inspections. This was about making sure
that I never succeeded him as the next chief. This was about keeping me from retiring in good standing with a pension. This was about destroying my reputation. Ultimately, this was about retaliation and a long-standing condemnment. When someone has a target on their back, they don't stand a chance. If I were given unrestricted
access to every system in this department, I could likely identify hundreds of policy violations considered uh committed by the officers at PLD. None of us are perfect. We all make mistakes, myself included. But discipline should always be fair, proportionate, consistent, and it should
serve a purpose. Are we attempting to correct behavior to ensure the safety of the public and the police officers? Or are we looking to settle the score? When many out discipline, these important questions should always be asked. Was this a mistake of the mind or a mistake of the heart? Is this discipline
proportionate to the allegations? Was the investigation conducted fairly and impartially? What actual harm resulted? What prompted the investigation in the first place and is there potentially an ulterior motive? Those questions matter because fairness matters. I know
everyone sitting here before me tonight. I know you are all decent, hardworking, and honest people. You have a thankless job and 11,000 people who are constantly looking to you for answers. My criticism is directed at the passive, hands-off approach that allowed these issues to
escalate over the years. Good leadership requires confronting difficult problems before they spiral out of control. Based on my experience, a dangerous precedent has been set. Employees observe concerning conduct. They may now think twice about reporting that as fear
of retaliation, and if retaliation does occur, they may fear that speaking up will only exacerbate their issues and lead to termination of their employment. My hope is that something positive can still come from this. We have good officers in the department who care deeply about this town and have risk their lives for the people in this room
and in this community. No employee should ever be made to feel the way that I and others have felt. I wouldn't wish that upon anyone. When the stressors of this job are combined with mental health issues, family issues, financial issues, it becomes a recipe for disaster. Please
show these officers that they are valued employees and not just a name or a number on a piece of paper. Pizza parties and award ceremonies can serve as good motivating tools. But at the end of the day, officers need to know that someone here cares about them when it matters the most. If someone is being mistreated, they have to believe that
there is avenue for relief. They have to believe that policies will be adhered to and there will be someone to listen when in office politics are ruining his or her life. The greatest fear for many officers is not the criminal on the street with the hoodie and the ski mask. It's the fear of the vindictive
supervisor who can destroy a career with a stroke of a cat. Respectfully, I do not believe this process was truly neutral or impartial. The outcome was predetermined before the investigation began. The hearing officer is retained and compensated by the town while also
maintaining a long-standing professional relationship with the individual filing the charges. It inevitably raises concerns regarding whether explicit or implicit bias is present. I urge each of you to independently review review the briefs, transcripts, testimony, and
evidence rather than simply deferring to a recommendation that in my view does not fully reflect the factual and legal realities of this case. If you do, I believe you will see I was not the individual engaging engaging in any outrageous misconduct. I trust that the council understands the gravity of their
decision tonight. This is an extremely convoluted case with a number of complex issues. I'm somehow being charged with untruthfulness after the primary investigator testified that I was in fact truthful. Evidence that would have cleared me was purposely destroyed after the investigation was initiated. My due
process rights were violated again and again without consequence. I trust that you will give this decision the attention it deserves as you decide on what is in the best interest of the burrow and the police department. Before we head down a long and expensive path of litigation and appeals, I implore you
to study this case along with my notice of tort claim so you can cast an informed vote. I've dedicated my life to serving this now and I simply ask to be treated with the same fairness and consideration that I have shown others throughout my career. I always wanted to be a police officer and despite
everything that's happened, I still do. I'm asking for the opportunity to continue serving this community and doing what I believe I was put on this earth to do. Thank you for your time and God bless. Thank you. Anyone else from the public would like to address? Seeing no one, can I have a motion to
close the public session? >> Motion. >> Councilman Bennett. >> Second. >> Council President Kent. All in favor? >> I against. Okay. At this point, now I want to leave pass it off to uh the people representing us and to talk about the case in general and and the outcome. >> Great. Thank you, mayor. Um, so ladies
and gentlemen, uh, Captain Shashan, you just heard from him. Uh, he was brought up on charges with allegations that alleged neglected duty, content become a public employee, and other sufficient cause, which in, uh, lay terms is violates the implicit standard of good behavior that delves on all public
employees. The underlying allegations to support those charges related to falsified, the most egregious, falsified, what I'll say, jail checks. State New Jersey requires that cells be checked for uh contraband weapons um on a daily basis and on a weekly basis.
Those reports be signed and filed by people doing those checks. Here uh it was alleged that uh Captain Shashawn falsified those records that he in fact did those checks. The evidence showed that um at least 18 times when he signed off on the date that he had done those
checks, he was on vacation or wasn't at work. It also showed that the FOB, which gets you into that that's uh you know the records that show you getting into the the detention area, he never accessed it, never went in there on multiple occasions, more than just the
18. Um so he and he admitted to internal affairs uh that he did not do the required check. >> Could you just explain to the audience what internal affairs is? >> Right. Right. So internal affairs is the internal agency within the police department that uh investigates
allegations of police misconduct is set up by the attorney general's office through what Captain Shashan mentioned the internal affairs uh policies and procedures that have been adopted by the attorney general. They are law there there's a statute that says the IIA guidelines established by the attorney
general are law in the state of New Jersey. Um and so internal affairs is charged with under the supervision of the prosecutor's office and the chief of police to investigate allegations of police misconduct whether they come from outside the agency or within the agency.
Here there was an allegation of failure to do battery checks, failure to do overtime uh approvals, and then failure to do the detention checks. Two of those three came from someone other than the chief of police, came from other people within the department. Um, so you you
need to understand that it's laid out in Chief Aduka's uh report. The chief found that um the detention logs, which is the most egregious of the conduct, uh were were signed when he never entered the jail area and thus he could not have completed those checks as
required. Um his argument through his attorney was it's duplicative. Officers are doing daily checks. Why do I have to do the weekly checks? Because you're required to do the weekly checks, right? They are public documents. their records of the police department. Um, and he was just signing off as if he had done them
when they hadn't happened, when those checks had not occurred. Um, as I said before, there were 18 separate occasions when he signed those locks for times when he was either on vacation or not at work. And the rule is if you document something that you did it on a date certain, you better have done it on that
date. That's the rule. It's a simple rule, right? If I do something, I say I did it and I did it on this date. And what they discovered here was that that didn't happen. The um hearing officer also concluded that during the internal affairs interview uh with Lieutenant
Kaplaki uh that Captain Shashan uh was he lacked cander during his interview was not truthful with uh the lieutenant. Um and his answer contradicted um that he did the jail checks by the records relative to entry into the jail
detention area of the FOBs that we're talking about, right? being able to swipe and get in. >> So if you could just go back you who did the interview? Explain how that interview went and who did >> so so the the the case was assigned to Lieutenant Kaki. Um he was the IIA officer. He was the one who did the interview of Captain Shashan.
Um so after multiple days of hearings, after multiple witnesses, and I'll note Captain Shashawn did not testify at the local hearing. He didn't have to testify. Uh but he didn't testify. Um, he could have, I guess, explained to the hearing officer what he said to you tonight. He could have gotten up on the
stand and taken that, but he would have been subject to cross-exam by Mr. Shapiro here had he elected to testify. Again, his right not to testify, but I find it interesting that he that tonight he makes statements that aren't subject to cross-exam. Um following all the
multiple days of hearings, multiple witnesses, um experts, the hearing officer then compiled everything that he had heard over months and months of testimony. Uh issued a 15-page report. Uh he found Captain Shashan guilty of all the charges that were brought
against him. And the most egregious being the falsification of records. And the reason that that's important for you to understand is officers are charged within the attorney general guidelines, okay, to be truthful. They absolutely say honesty is an essential function for
any police officer. Police officers who can't be truthful cannot beat police officers. Why is that? Because police officers get up on the stand, they raise their hand in municipal court, criminal court, superior court, and and swear to tell the truth. An officer found guilty of untruthfulness now has a, you know,
black mark next to his name. um and can be cross-examined about well you're saying this event happened here and that's true but in the past when somebody questioned what you did you provided false information or you filed a false police report. Um so it creates
issues um that can be exposed by criminal defense attorneys, municipal defense attorneys to the officers. So in 2017 when the guidelines were amended and then again in 2019 the attorney general said enough and created a policy within the guidelines themselves that
that quoted uh exactly what I just said to you. So that's the problem here. This almost admitted conduct of yes I falsified the jail checks but it's no big deal is a big deal. Those are department records or official records of those detention cells. Um and they
are false admittedly false and the hearing officer found that um and he recommended uh termination in this particular case. So what's before you is the decision. Um if anyone disagrees with that recommendation,
disagrees with the uh hearing officer findings, um that's what's being asked of you. >> All right. Before I'm going to open it up to everyone, you know, for for everyone that's here and I thank you for coming. This is not something we enjoy doing or being involved with. Believe me, this is not something we're running
on saying we want this to happen. We wish it didn't happen. To be honest, we wish everything was the way it was before we started. Unfortunately, we're not there and this is what we have to deal with. There are rules and regulations set up by the state, not by us, by by things that happened in this case. Now, he has the opportunity to go
further with this if he would like. So do we. Um but at the end of the day, there were things that were found to be untruthful. And to be untruthful as an officer is a big deal. It's not just like any other job. You're an officer and you're untruthful, that's a problem. Um, you know, at the end of the day, if
if if we had concerns and about these other things and I and I've met with with the applicant about what some of the things he brought up and and I did listen to what he had to say and I did have meetings with the old chief and him to try to straighten these problems out. That is separate from what went on with
this though, unfortunately. That's that's what we have to deal with as a council and as a group up here. That's what we're looking at. We're dealing with the facts that were presented to us by both sides of the attorneys and by the investigation that was done by our own people that we have to judge by. We
can't judge it by how he reacted to the old chief or the new chief. Um so we're just going by the facts. So with that, I'm going to open up. Anybody has the last thing I'll add is if you want just add because I know it's going to come up. We're not here to discuss his licensing, his pension. Explain where
that would come from either one of you, how how that works. >> Sure. So, um, pension is that's up to the pension system. Um, I off the top of my head, I don't know how much service time Captain Shashan has in the pension system, but, um, regardless of, uh, that
that decision is made by the petrol system. um relative to his uh police training commission license, PTC license. Uh even if you were to uh conclude that that uh a lesser penalty is appropriate, a greater penalty is appropriate, something along those
lines, the ultimate determination by PTC is theirs and their >> PTC police training commission. That's their decision alone. And Captain Shashan will have uh would have the right to even challenge their decision, but that's separate apart from us. They they take a look at the IIA file. uh
they take a look at now the entire hearing file uh if uh and then determine whether or not his license should be suspended or revoked. But that's their call. Um our only uh involvement in that would be a conduit to provide information that they request there. The
AGS would prosecute those charges and Captain Shashan would have due process to challenge those of course um just as he would at any other process. >> Right. So what you're saying, just so I want to make sure the message is heard, no matter what we decide here, this is still going to go to licensing and they're going to make their own
determination on what they feel is right no matter what we say here. >> Yeah. I'll give you a perfect example. The council is free to say, you know, we think that removal is too harsh, right? You you could say that um and and you can impose some lesser penalty. PTC at some point in time is going to look at this matter because Captain Shashan will
have to go through renewals. Licenses through PTC are only good for 3 years. Okay? And so licenses get renewed. And when they get renewed, one of the things that they'll ask the department is, "Please provide me with every IIA file that you have on that officer, whether it was sustained or not sustained." Right? An officer can have a demeanor
complaint. They pulled somebody over. They stopped them. The person didn't like the way the officer talked to them. It was investigated. It was unfounded. It was not sustained. They still want that file, too. Um, so they'll ask for those files. They'll review those files. They do an independent review. and then they make the ultimate determination about again suspension revocation of
that license based on standards that they apply based on the new law. >> Okay, I'm going to open up questions by anybody. >> I I have a question. >> Sure. >> So on on the um hearing decision,
>> we kind of can't hear you. >> Sorry. >> Can't hear me. >> No, you were very low, too. >> Okay, I'll get closer. this better? >> I can hear you. >> Okay. All right. So, on the hearing decision document that we received and
we reviewed on the very last page, page 14, it talks about recommended penalty. Recommended penalty. >> I don't think your mics are on. >> Yeah. >> Hello. Talk loud. Talk loud. Okay.
>> All right. I'll talk loud. Um on the hearing decision document that we've received, we all received on the recommended on page 14 there's a section at the very bottom it says recommended
penalty and it the hearing officer says I am recommending termination for the violations as proposed by the burough. I base this recommendation on the falsification of
the records and the lack of cander during the internal affairs investigation. The burrow is free to implement any penalty they deem appropriate. My question to you to you our attorney is what is what is a
penalty and what are we free to implement that penalty? I don't understand what that means. So, so your hearing officer makes a recommendation on penalty. He says removal, but ultimately you're the decider of that. So, when he says you're you're free to implement any penalty you deem
appropriate, penalty would be a suspension without pay, that's a penalty, right? If I'm suspended without pay from work, that's a penalty. If I'm demoted, that is a penalty. Okay? Or if I'm removed from employment, that is a penalty. So, those are kind of the three penalties that you have of penalties to
consider um in civil service. So you know, okay, no suspension could be longer than 6 months. Civil service and the court say if you want to suspend the police officer or any public employee for longer than 6 months, you terminate that. There is no suspension greater than 6 months. But so the hearing officer is saying, "Look, this is my recommendation. This is what I'm telling
you. But you're the decision maker. You decide what the other questions. >> So right now >> close. >> I think I'm pretty loud. I I bustle too.
>> Um so right now it's been over 2 years that he's been out. >> Yes. >> Now you said not over 6 months. >> It's been over 2 years. >> Okay. But there no penalty has been imposed yet, right? It's not final. So civil service also allows for the
suspension of an officer who's either been charged or is under investigation. Um that's at the discretion of the employer to do so. Um it just took, you know, multiple hearing dates. The hearing started, you know, months after he was charged and took months to complete.
>> Okay. Why don't you talk about uh the other list that that's involved that police officers on the Brady Gigglio list, >> right? So I I alluded to that before, right? When when officers are deemed and you know PTC will look at this and I use that that's the acronym police commission. It's easier for me to say
PDC. So Brady Gigglio is is a list. It comes out of a Supreme Court in the US Supreme Court case um that dealt with uh exculpatory evidence for a defendant. Okay. Uh in the Brady v Maryland case and what the Supreme Court said was if you have exculpatory evidence which in
that case was did the police officers falsify reports or or have indications that somebody else may have committed the crime, they were required the prosecutors were required to come forward and provide that information to defense council. So this became Brady material. book coupled within the braiding material, right, are findings
by police officers that they falsified records that they've been untruthful. Um, uh there's a litany of of items that would trigger Brady that end up in in person uh personnel files and the department is required, as a matter of law, to provide the prosecutor's office
with Brady material uh for any officer who may be a material state witness. and the fedal government, the US attorney's office in New York will consistently ask the department for Brady Gigglio material um in an officer's file so that they can determine whether or not that
person is uh permitted to participate in police uh activities because they don't want to have an officer who has Brady material to be somebody who's investigating crimes and being a material state witness against a potential uh criminal defendant. So, Mayor, that is a that's Brady Gigglio
material. Any other questions down here? >> Um, so as far as the penalties are concerned, it's it's not absorbing all of them. We can decide within those penalties what we want to apply. If you can't hear me, I'm really loud. >> I I am loud.
>> I'm right here. >> I am loud. They're acknowledging right now that they can hear me. So, I'm pretty loud in council meetings. I'll speak louder so everybody can hear me. My question is simple. out of all the things they're charging right now, does
it have to be all or nothing or can we be selective regardless? I know the licensing division has to handle it or anything else as far as council is concerned. Um, is that something I think that that we can do here as far as making our decision? Like I don't want to vote on everything. For example, let's say, for example, we're up to
vote. We're going to decide. I may not agree with everything. >> So, is that something we can't do here or is that something that we have to >> Well, no. So what we're voting on today is this case, not about all the other parts of the case. We're just voting on uh on where we want to the discipline
should be. It's been recommended discipline of dismissal. We're voting on the recommendation of the of the uh magistrate on this >> but not on the licensing. We have nothing to do with the licensing. We have nothing to do with that. >> Nothing to do with that. You have nothing to do with PTC. You have nothing to do with pensions. All you're
determining is what the hearing officer included and recommended. Included guilt, any recommended removal, but you have the discretion as the body that decides the penalties to be imposed against a police officer whether it should be removal, it should be demotion, or it should be a suspension
or a combination of suspension and demotion. Um, and Bobby, just to answer your question, when it gets to those stages, we still won't have any say. That'll all be done. There's been times where people have been found innocent of something they were accused of and
licensing still takes their license because they didn't like it the way it was approached. They're independent organization that's made up through the state. Has nothing to do with us. We won't even be invited to that. Same thing with pensions. They might ask and tell me if I'm saying something wrong, Mike, or or or they'll ask for our information that we have about pensions.
We'll send everything to pensions and they'll make their determination on the pension. you know, and if there's something that comes up in there, you know, we we would work with them or we would try to help them, but there's nothing that comes from this body that's going to be talked about in the pension. >> So, potentially we could reinstate and
then the licensing and pension could be taken away and we still have an officer reinstating >> licensing. Yes. I'm not sure about pension. Mike, do you know anything about pension? >> No, we I can't really speak about pension. >> He had spoke that it's a different >> It is a different group. >> It's a different group that that decides that. I'm going to ask Boris,
unfortunately, and I don't like doing this, but could you list all the charges just so everybody understands what we're talking about? What what was brought up in in the case? What was >> Sure. >> because I don't know if everybody actual underpinning actual charges >> the charge. >> Okay. So, you can >> Excuse me one second, Mayor. Can you move that microphone further in front of
you so the back of the room can hear you better? >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, there was essentially three elements of the charges, each more serious than the last. I would say the least serious of which was failure to approve a dispatcher's overtime in a timely manner. Um the second matter
which is more serious than the first would be failure to conduct weekly checks of the battery backups and these battery backups are connected to the various computers as well as servers within the police departments. For example, there's two battery backups connected to the console at dispatch. So
if, god forbid, there's a power outage, then these battery backups click in. So that way the power does not go out at the dispatch. Um Ryan Shashawn's responsibility as the captain and the communications officer was to check these battery backups on a weekly basis
to make sure that they weren't at their end of life cycle so they could be replaced before they died. So if there was an emergency or a power outage, you would not lose power to the dispatch or the console or the computer so on and so forth. Um and the third sets of char
third part of these charges and most serious by far uh was the fact that Ryan did not conduct the weekly inspections of the jail cells which are required by law. um that he falsified the records to
indicate that he conducted these weekly inspections where he had not and also that he was untruthful during the course of his internal affairs interview. >> So explain that. What does that mean? He was untruthful. So how did that work? How did that come about? >> So during the course of the internal affairs investigation which was conducted by uh officer Klepaki,
Lieutenant Klepaki, uh he had interviewed a number of witnesses. Uh one of those witnesses was Ryan Shashawn. And during the course of the interview, Ryan Shashawn um with his attorney present provided answers to questions that were posed uh by officer
tenaci uh to Ryan and uh Ryan provided untruthful st statements. He was less than truthful in his responses to tenanti during the course of this interview. Um which lasted I forget exactly how long but approximately an
hour or so. Um, thank you. Was there any conversation with his attorney and our attorneys about offering him a plea bargain down before the judgment was given out? Do we know anything about that? >> Yes. So during the course of the
hearings um which proceeded over the course of 7 days and took uh some time to conclude, there were conversations uh between myself and Ryan's attorney uh to determine whether or not it was possible to reach anable resolution of the matter.
>> And didn't the judge himself ask to try to do that? >> Yes. Yes. Um at at the end of the day, uh we could not come to terms on on the resolution of this. >> Could you talk about what they were or you can't talk about? >> I can talk about it. Uh so
we're again there was numerous discussions but at the end of the day uh the burrow offered uh Ryan uh in lie of termination a double demotion to the position of sergeant. Uh there was other
terms and conditions to that agreement. Um but a double demotion was offered to him. Um and he declined. >> He declined that. >> My understanding was that Ryan was not interested in taking any sort of demotion. >> Okay. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. Just one last question. Um when you talk about falsifications, you said there were like 18 uh when he was not present. How many falsifications overall were the total? >> Sure. So Ryan became captain in 2019
around September of 2019 and when he became a captain and the communications officer he was responsible in conducting these weekly inspections of the jail facility. Um as part of that duty we're required to
sign off on these check sheets. Now, the check sheets contain a list of items supposed to check, alarms on and so forth. And there's also a states there to indicate whether or not whatever you were inspecting was in satisfactory condition. And then at the bottom of this check sheet, there's a line that
says inspecting officer to sign here. Um, so Ryan Shashawn had signed off on these check sheets, I would say over 200 times. Um now it was found through review of the
key fob data for example for for 2023 um although captain Shawn was supposed to go into these this facility on a weekly basis he was only in the facility itself approximately five times and none of those times were on date that he
indicated that he was in the actual facility. Um obviously as police officer you may go in there for other reasons such as if you bring somebody in who's been arrested and you need to check them and so on and so forth. Um but on none of those days that he indicated in 2023
for example that he was in that facility did the key fob data support that he was actually in that facility uh doing inspection or otherwise. Additionally, aside from that, a review of his personnel file indicated that on 18 days in particular,
where he indicated that he was in the facility doing his inspection, he was actually on vacation or otherwise out on some sort of paid leave. >> Thank you. >> Okay, any other questions? And while he was on vacation, nobody
else covered those inspections or >> he was asked about that by Lieutenant Kaki during a course of the Affairs interview and he indicated that no, he never asked anybody to conduct an inspection while he was out on vacation. >> Did he need to ask anybody to cover that? I mean, obvious if he's on
vacation and he's the only one that's supposed to be doing it. All the other, excuse me, officers know he's on vacation. The chief wouldn't assign somebody else to do the inspections. >> Well, it's his responsibility to conduct
inspection. So, if he's not available to do so, then it would be responsibility to ask somebody else to >> his responsibility. The chief >> his responsibility >> or if he's out for a day, then theoretically he can come back and do it the following day. But he indicated that
he never asked anybody else to conduct inspections when he was out on vacation. But the chief runs the show. He's the one that knowing he's going on vacation. Wouldn't you think that the chief would make sure that he had somebody covered? >> He's a captain and he that's part of his
responsibility. >> We understand that. But the chief oversees the entire department. >> The captain has responsibilities. Lieutenants have responsibilities. >> We understand that >> that they that are responsible for, >> but he's responsible for the entire department and he should make sure that
it's was covered. He is >> I don't think it works that way. I may I could be wrong. The point the point here is he he signed while he was on vacation. The date that was on the record was the date he was on vacation. Is that correct?
>> So he signed the paperwork. >> He just wasn't. >> Obviously that was his mistake. Correct. >> But I'm just what I'm saying is the chief oversees the entire department before he goes on vacation. And I would think that he might have spoken to him
and said, "Did you make sure that somebody is covering your assignments while you're on vacation?" >> The chief, respectfully, is not his babysitter. >> He has responsibilities. Please, >> please, please, there's no talking from
the audience. Please, please. I don't want you to have to remove it. Please, you know that. Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you, though. Please do as I do. It doesn't mitigate his misconduct namely falsifying the report.
>> No, I agree. I agree with that. He made a mistake in that respect for sure. But um I would think that the chief that oversees the entire department should make sure all the tees are crossed and the eyes are dotted and uh and should have had somebody checking that.
I would think that's the issue that I have with a lot of this procedure. Whereas >> So you don't have an issue with him not being here and signing for it? >> No. Obviously, he made a mistake. >> Is that a mistake or a lie? That's how you got to look at it.
>> It could be a lie. Yes, you can look at it as a lie. It's not a criminal charge. There's no criminal charges here. Correct. >> No, it was reviewed by the prosecutor's office, then declined to prosecute. >> Right. So there's no >> It is a crime to falsify public record. It was looked at. The prosecutors declined to prosecute.
>> Why? >> Prosecutorial discretion. There's better things to do than say cancel. So, >> so they didn't really think that that was that big a deal. >> I No, I didn't say that. I just said prosecutoal discretion. They returned it to the department for administrative handling. >> Okay.
>> They they may have had an idea like if I have a police officer that falsified something 18 times, pretty good idea what what the finding might be on that, right? So why waste prosecutorial, you know, money um send it back to the town and have them do it. >> So just so everybody understands the way
that that works is our departments or every police department can send things to the the county for for to check it out. They have the opportunity to either say yes, we'll take a look at that or they'll send it back to the town and they say you take care of it yourself. Nine out of 10, unless it's very severe stuff, they send it back to the town. Um
uh there you know there are some circumstances where they'll keep things but it's their discretion on how they handle looking at that stuff. It's not ours, it's theirs. Okay. Any other questions, concerns, comments? >> No. All right, Mike. So, what what what are we doing now here? What am I
reading? >> You need a motion and a second to implement penalty as you see fit. >> Okay. what I'm going to do with this. Um, so we're going with the judgment that was presented by our professionals. Um,
which is, I hate to say it, unfortunate dismissal. Um, and we're going to take a roll call on that, Liz. So, can I have I need a motion? and and if I may, mayor, um and or correct me if I I'm wrong, but
that motion could be uh the motion to pursue the recommendation could be subject to a motion. >> Yes. And that motion could be to reduce it if there is a desire to do that, in which case it would have to be seconded, right? >> And then there's a roll call on that
reduction. If the reduction is not seconded, then it dies. Clerk will indicate as such and then there's a roll call on the initial motion for the initial discipline. Correct. >> Right. There's a lot of word motion in there. You got to work me through that.
>> So the initial resolution is on the recommendation of removal. So that's that's what you're moving to do is whether you're going to accept the recommendation of removal. >> Okay. So correct, but but it could be amended there because I I understand there's some dialogue. I understand.
>> I just want to let the governing body know what their options are. >> Okay. >> So we could do a motion to a reduction. >> Well, it would have to be seconded. If it's not second, you can't. >> I I I would suggest that the for that motion to have any sort of meaning, it
should accompany what the recommendation is. >> Oh. What the reduction should be. >> Correct. and and and I also believe that uh Mr. Tibo had indicated that the next step below termination is a maximum of a
6-month suspension. >> The motion would be actually be the next the next penalty, right? So in in the penalty, okay, you know, it's suspension of whatever time from 1 day to 180 days. >> Uh the next penalty which is, you know, would that be a demotion uh right and
then the final would be the removal. So I have a question on demotion. Sure. >> On demotion, does that include title as well as uh your salary? >> Yes. If you're if you're demoted in rank, you would then have the rank time commitment with your with your rank. You
have the I'm sorry. You have the t the salary set forth in the PBA contract with your rank. So the demotion from captain to sergeant comes with that title and the salary. Now for sergeant >> that would also have to be accepted by the planner in this. No, if you oppose I
mean I he could reject it and appeal it, >> right? You could still appeal that course. >> Just because we offer something also doesn't mean he's going to >> Yeah, you're not you're not offering it. You're opposing it by your vote tonight if if that were the decision, right? If the decision was we're going to demote him sergeant, right? you're going to
impose that by your vote, but Captain Shashawn would have the right to appeal that penalty of demotion to civil service um and challenge that, you know, as he would the removal or as he would a major suspension, which is more than 5 days.
And and I mean just again, civil service, we're we have nothing to do with that either. That's a civil service matter, right? That that all has to do with them, not with us. So what we're here doing is discussing the ability of what we want to do from the things you've heard that he has done
which he's admitted to doing in most states through an interview with our own people. So you know that's what we're judging our decision by. Okay? We're not discussing anything that could happen with licensing or civil service or maybe with his pension. That has nothing to do with any of our discussion and it will
not have anything to do with our discussion. What we're deciding now is if you heard what he thought was what you thought was egregious enough to for dismissal. That's what was presented by a outside party that looked at both sides. Remember this outside party I
know it was brought up that he's works for us. He does not work for us. He's an independent contractor basically who hears both sides, gets all the information from both sides and then makes his decision. It we we could have went against us too from the same person. Okay. We just want to make sure
we're all on the same page when we're making that decision. >> Mr. Smith, Mr. May, can I >> Sure. >> Anybody any help here? >> So, uh, maybe, and again, this is for the the benefit of the governing body. Uh, I'm not sure if the governing body knows the order of ranks. I think that if they're considering demotion, we
should at least let people know what they are. My understanding it's captain, lieutenant, sergeant, trollman. Correct. >> Yes. And are they able to uh do a combination of demotion and suspension or is it one or the other? >> Yes. No, you can do both.
>> Okay. And if it's suspension, it's a maximum of 6 months. >> Yes. >> And is there any limitation on downgrading for the demotion? >> No. That you could demote all the way down to patrol officer. >> Okay. Okay. Just want everyone to understand what the options are >> and and just as I mentioned before, you
know, that was offered before the settlement was come had come out. We had offered him that. >> What did you exactly offer? What title? >> Sergeant or patrolman? Yes. >> Sergeant or >> we were told by through attorneys that that was not acceptable. >> So that and that was before the judgment was out. >> Mhm. >> Um
>> how long ago was that made? >> I can't give you times maybe. Do you know when you had that discussion? So again there are some discussions throughout the course of the hearings but the most recent discussion occurred after the briefs were submitted but
before a decision was rendered by the hearing officer. At that time the offer was a double demotion to sergeant. Prior to that, um there was an offer to demote him to patrol officer. Um but we offered
to demote him to sergeant and he was still not interested in that. >> That was 6 months ago, a year ago. >> Yeah. More like 3 months ago, might been two. Yeah. The decision just came out at the end of last month. So So it was it
was sometime it was sometime in early April and was the last communication of the sergeant Okay. So, I'm looking for a motion for, as it's written, dismissal. >> I just want to say something really quick. Has nothing to do with this. Um,
I mean, it does, but regardless of the outcome of what we vote on, I'll speak personally that I'm not for you losing your license. Okay? I think if you want to be a police officer and you have identified where you did wrong and what
you can do better, you know, again, regardless of our decision, I really hope it does work out in your favor in that sense, >> okay? Cuz I don't want you to lose your license, but we have to make a decision here based on these findings. And I'm struggling with that cuz that's not our call. It's somebody else.
>> And you know, it's well said. I'm just a little bothered that, you know, some of this I wish would have came out sooner cuz making this decision just now without pondering for a day or two, reread and go through this again because it was a moving spot. >> Well, we have the opportunity if you'd
like to make the decision on Wednesday. >> I mean, I don't know. It's just nothing's changed and we're not going to have this whole thing again, but we can if you want to sit on it or think about it, you can. >> Is there any time frame that they're subject to? >> Uh, >> 20 days, right? >> 20 days.
20 days from the date of the decision. >> So there's there's no case law. There's a rule in civil service that says that that a decision will be run within 20 days of the hearing unless the parties agreed to a time otherwise. It's a regulation. Okay. Um my opinion of that
that 20-day time period is blown. The parties agreed to brief uh the hearing. The hearing ended what what was the last day of the hearing? It's in the it's in its thing. So the last day of the hearing is November 17, 2025. The parties had briefed it. Then there was reply briefs
and and sir reply briefs. Um so the 20 days in my view was done as of November 17 when the parties agreed to close in in most cases like you know you see on TV, you see in court, right? Closings are done orally. You stand in front of the jury, you stand in front of the
judge and you close the case and it's over. Okay? And that happens sometimes in local hearings, right? that the parties agree to close orally and the hearing is closed and that's it. You get 20 days. Um, but the parties can sometimes agree, especially in a case this this heavy can say to the hearing officer, you know, take your time. We're
not worried about the the 20-day rule. And also knowing full well that the hearing officer isn't the one imposing that penalty, right? It's coming to the appropriate authority. In your case, the entire council. So, in my view, the 20 days is gone. It was gone, you know, in on December 7th, give or take, right?
Um, but the parties agreed to a process. So, I'm not worried about the 20-day rule. I don't see a time uh constraint here, Mark. >> So, you think that we're we're as safe on Wednesday as we are today? >> You're safe on Wednesday as you are today. >> But whatever we decide today or
Wednesday, it's going we start with the motion first and then we go from there. That's where that's where we're starting from. There's no in between of that because that's what's presented to us. >> So, we start with that. >> So, I can make a motion that we table this decision until Wednesday, our council meeting.
>> Right. But all that's going to happen is we're not going to have this discussion again. We're just going to make the motion >> I understood >> to to uh follow. There's not going to be another discussion. >> Understood. >> We can make a motion for a reduction in the motion also. >> Well, they let's go back. Correct. First
thing is a motion. Okay. Of dismissing because that's was presented to us. >> If that doesn't pass, >> then someone can make a motion for to change that. That would have to have a second. If that doesn't have a second, that can't happen either. So the
termination is the first vote. >> Yes. Has to be the first vote. Yes. >> And if the majority votes to terminate, >> that's what it is. >> And it's all over. >> Yeah. >> Uh maybe let me ask this question. Uh, in the event that there is no motion to
move the initial, then would it be appropriate for us to ask if there is a motion uh that's altering the uh or table? Well, one not necessarily tableabling,
but I I think that based upon the question uh uh that uh Councilman Hinton had mentioned, >> uh if there isn't a first and a second, oh, not let strike that. If there isn't a first
>> on the initial removal, uh how do we get to the the reduced? Uh >> so we can make a motion. So we can make a motion to uh you know amend the recommendation to the motion or something lesser than >> Yeah. And then and then there's a second
and then all right. So that's how that's how we would handle that. If there's if the initial motion isn't made then you could ask a motion to to amend the recommendation and impose discipline and
>> all right. So let me just say this and look again I'm going to say this for the a for everybody up here. Th this is not something we really are looking at doing. We we we don't enjoy doing what we're doing here. This is a hard thing. You know, you know, this is not a good thing. But this board is picked to make
these decisions. This is what we have to do. One way or the other, we're making a decision. We can't just say no decision. Okay? So, whatever we decide, it's going to be a decision that's made. Can't change that decision. If you need more time to think about it, fine. You can think about that. That's not doing
anything. But we're not doing this whole thing again. you know that present the parameters that we're dealing with. You know where we're coming from. So the first step is does anybody want to make a motion as it reads right now? >> I I have one question. If if he was
demoted I don't know if you this could be answered and the state finds him and takes his license. What kind of police work can he do after a license is taken? And what responsibility will the town
have as an him as an employee of the town that is an officer? >> Yeah. So it's a hypothetical, but if PTC revokes the license, he can't be a police officer. Couldn't even be a dispatcher, couldn't have access to police stop. So you'd be going through
this all over again on an inability to perform the duties of police officer. Another charge that removes him from employment because he can't be a police officer. And let's talk going back to that list again. >> We can't just if he's on this other list,
>> radio getting radioist, >> he he he can still do his job as an officer. Correct. >> The the pro listen it it's it's certainly possible that >> but the court is not going to look favorably when we do those things. >> Well, the prosecutor's office could tell I mean I have this in other places and
the most recent being Ocean County um where the prosecutor's office told the town you are not to send that officer on. and it was a sergeant. You're not to send that officer out of any car stops, any criminal investigations, they're not to be involved at all. >> Correct. >> So they they could direct that to the chief. That that that happens there. I
mean, again, hypotheticals, but can that happen? Of course. >> And and let me just say, for the council's sake, in larger communities, and larger towns, there's ways to take officers that have the same situation, maybe put them in other departments that do not write tickets, are not involved. In a small town like us, every officer is out there writing tickets. It becomes
difficult. We can't have, look, we're responsible for the tax dollars at the end of the day also, right? We can't have a an an employee that can't do his job. We just can't have that. >> So, you're saying that puts the chief in a predicament, whereas what would he do with the individual if he's not
licensed? >> Well, licenses, he's out. He would be out. He doesn't get his license. >> And let me ask about the licenses. You said that goes review it every 3 years. >> The license is renewed every 3 years. So if we make any kind of decision, does licensing make an immediate decision or
is the time period till his next licensing event come up? Could be a year and a half, could be two years. >> PTC has the authority to request an IIA file at any time it deems appropriate. So it could ask for the file at any time. I don't know if that's happened.
Um they could ask it in renewal. I'm not sure when Captain Shashan's license renewal is up, right? >> Um time period. >> Yeah. I I don't know, but they can ask for it at any time. You know, they >> if they have evidence or have a need to want to review it, right?
>> But if say if we keep them >> and it's another two and a half years before is that puts the chief say and everybody in a predicament where we're paying an officer that really can't do anything, >> right? I think we're getting off the subject though about the licensing and and the pension. >> Well, it's all part of it.
>> But it's not because we're here to make a determination. This council is here to make a determination on the charges that he were filed against him. Not about his licensing, not about his pension, not about any other things. We're here to listen to the charges and then decide on a penalty for those charges. We've heard
the charges. They've been presented to us. That's what we're here to make a determination on. Nothing else. What happens in the future, no one can tell you. I can't no one's going to be able to tell you that. So, mayor, the the the last thing that I just want to uh comment on is uh if this were to be
tabled and there was a motion uh to alter the recommendation, we couldn't be having this dialogue at next week's meeting without doing a rights notice. Correct. We we can't engage in that
>> that dialogue. So to the extent that there's uh a an idea about uh adjusting that you know once you have a motion you're not supposed to be engaged in dialogue but you you certainly could discuss the motion the motion to amend
um but uh today you could do that rice this is what we expected to take place uh you have greater latitude today to discuss that and to discuss the motion that alters things uh than you will on
Wednesday unless of course we renotice him and uh >> I just want to bring that point out. >> We can't do that in two days, can we? >> Yep. >> Um so I understand Mark's point completely. We have the ability to make decisions right now today. On Wednesday,
we would not. We'd have to rewrite him and he would have a choice to to have it open or closed. Same same situation we had now. Um, so that, you know, delays it a little bit, but you know, meanwhile, we have it, we're talking about a gentleman's future. We're talking about our police department. You know, the longer this delays, the longer this is harder for everybody. Um, so,
you know, and and I haven't really given the chief. Chief, do you have anything you want to add just from the police standpoint of this and how men power and things work? >> Let's just make sure it's appropriate. Is that is that she's not involved in this? >> No. Okay. Okay. I was just talking about All right. So, then this is where we
are. So, I'll go back to what I said initially. Someone can make a motion right now as it stands. Someone can make a motion to table it. Someone can make a motion to change it. You can do those three things right now. >> The first question, mayor, should be, is
there a motion on the removal? >> Right. That's what I'm trying to say. Is there a motion for removal, which is what we're here to talk about? >> Seeing none, I guess you can now ask for a motion. >> Yeah. Is there a motion uh on an amendment of a penalty? >> All right. Is there a motion on
amendment of the penalty? >> I'll make that motion. >> Okay. But you have to say what it is. >> I'd like to make the motion to amend the penalty. Is that the correct phrase? >> Mhm. >> Uh the motion to lieutenant and six-mon suspension. >> I'll second that.
>> Okay. Take a roll call on that. >> Councilman B. >> Yes. Councilman Cruz. >> Yes. >> Councilman H. >> Yes.
>> Council Council President Ken. >> Yes. >> Councilman Sanders. >> Yes. >> Councilman Ben. >> Yes. >> Okay. Motion passes. That's where we are with this gentleman and ladies. >> Okay. Motion to adjurnn.
>> Motion. >> Council Bennett. >> Second. >> Council Cruz. All in favor? All right. Against