Judge Rules City Must Trim Police, Live by Ordinance

WILDWOOD – Dara Baltuskonis, a Wildwood resident and Wildwood Watchdogs member, filed a two-part civil suit against the city Oct. 3, 2014, alleging that it had authorized the hiring of excess police officers and thereby violated a city ordinance limiting the number of police officers that may be hired.
That ordinance, passed Oct. 27, 2010, with a referendum held May 11, 2011, showed voters supported downsizing by limiting the number of police officers to one police chief, one deputy chief, one captain, one lieutenant, five sergeants and 38 patrolmen. Previously, the ordinance allowed for five lieutenants and seven sergeants.
At the time of filing, Baltuskonis stated, “as a result of the excess hiring, the city has expended sums over what is authorized and the city has been mismanaged and become liable for potential violations of employment law by hiring an excess number of officers.”
In the lawsuit, Baltuskonis asked Wildwood commissioners to obey the ordinance and that those responsible for hiring the police sergeants reimburse the city for all salaries and expenses of the excess police sergeants.
During the city’s budget presentation July 9, 2014, city commissioners made it known that public safety was a huge concern and for that reason had discretion in exceeding the numbers as per the ordinance’s limits.
The second part of Baltuskonis’ suit challenged the “Cap Bank,” which was established through an ordinance that was passed by commissioners July 9, 2014. “The ‘Cap Bank’ is a sneaky device cloaked as a ‘bank’ that enables the commissioners to avoid coming before the public with a referendum on spending if the state maximum limits are exceeded,” said Wildwood Watchdogs in an email around the time of implementation of the ordinance.
Wildwood Watchdogs circulated a petition July 15, 2014 asking for a referendum of the ordinance, which was found to have enough signatures to move the process forward. However, the petition was rejected by the city. The city claimed that ordinances pertaining to the budget are not subject to objection by petition. Baltuskonis alleged that the petition did not challenge the budget but rather the establishment of the “Cap Bank,” and can be challenged, just like any other ordinance.
Judge Julio Mendez presiding over the Superior Court of New Jersey, Cape May County Feb. 18, rendered his opinion of 18 pages regarding Baltuskonis’ complaint. Mendez held that the City of Wildwood is in violation of the ordinance which sets a limit on the number of full-time police officers by rank and that Wildwood has more sergeants than permitted. The ordinance in question per Mendez’s ruling was “passed under the ‘reign’ of Mayor Gary DeMarzo” and does not give discretion as argued by the city to ignore the limits and implement no firm ceiling or floor regarding the number of police officers the city can employ.
Continuing his ruling, Mendez noted that per the ordinance in question, Wildwood is permitted the following: one police chief, one deputy police chief, one captain, one lieutenant, five sergeants and 38 patrolmen.
Contrary to defendant Wildwood’s argument that the city’s director of public safety and the police chief can create extra positions and/or exceed the ordinance’s maximum officer mandate, Mendez held that “the only plausible interpretation” of the ordinance is that the position totals enumerated in the ordinance are what is allowed.
In disposition of this suit, Mendez ordered that Wildwood come into compliance as soon as possible with his ruling and the ordinance by leaving unfilled currently staffed sergeant positions that are above the permitted total as they become vacant. Mendez also ordered that Wildwood hold the deputy police chief position vacant, which is currently vacant until the number of sergeants is in conformance with the ordinance. In his opinion, Mendez explained that there was evidence that the salary of two sergeants is equivalent to the salary of the deputy police chief so will equal the excess salaries now being paid.
Mendez rejected the second part of the lawsuit, specifically Baltiskonis’ request to hold that the “Cap Bank” provision is subject to referendum. He ruled that the “flexibility” to exceed the budget is meant to “work in harmony” with the “Cap Bank.” Since “Cap Bank” would create budget uncertainty and make it difficult to forecast expenses and thus be “unfair to taxpayers” it cannot be subject to referendum, ruled Mendez.
Mendez concluded his ruling that the city is “free to amend the ordinance” if it so chooses. Plaintiff Baltuskonis did not respond to a Herald request for comment.
To contact Camille Sailer, email csailer@cmcherald.com.