Prosecutor Asks Court to Remove City Manager’s Authority Over Police Department

COURT HOUSE – County Prosecutor Robert Taylor is asking the court to remove Cape May City Manager Bruce Macleod as the municipal official with oversight over the police department. The counterclaim by Taylor is the latest action in a lawsuit initiated by the city. The city is attempting to have the courts force the Prosecutor’s Office to remove the monitor Taylor placed in the city’s police department. The suit by the city is currently before Superior Court Judge J. Christopher Gibson who has held oral arguments in the case but has not yet ruled.
Taylor’s counterclaim, filed with the court May 27, asks the judge to order the city to remove Macleod as the “appropriate authority” with “certain statutory oversight and supervisory authority over the operations of the police department.” At dispute in the initial lawsuit is the level of authority the municipality actually has over the department and what rests with the County Prosecutor in a chain of authority that extends to the State Attorney General. What Taylor is effectively arguing is that whatever level of authority and oversight does rest with the municipality should not be in the hands of Cape May’s present City Manager.
Macleod’s authority with respect to the police department stems from his role as the City Manager in Cape May’s form of government under the Faulkner Act. Taylor’s counterclaim is asking the court to intervene in the structure of the city’s municipal government based on a long list of allegations regarding Macleod’s fitness to play any police department oversight role. Macleod’s authority also rests on an ordinance passed by the city council to which the residents had input in the form of a public hearing.
On March 3, Cape May City Council rescinded the appointment of Robert Sheehan as the city’s police chief. The move had the effect of demoting Sheehan back to his previous rank as captain but leaving him still with command authority over the department. From that point, the city has been embroiled in a controversy over the move that resulted in a lawsuit by Sheehan against the city, an attempt by some citizens to force a recall election against Mayor Edward Mahaney, and the placement of the monitor in the police department leading to the city’s suit against the Prosecutor.
The counterclaim filed by Taylor is aimed specifically at Macleod. The Prosecutor claims that Macleod “has broken the law on a number of occasions intentionally.” The reference is to Macleod’s role in violations of “New Jersey Attorney General Guidelines on the confidentiality of internal affairs investigations involving two officers in the Cape May Police Department.” Presenting a chronology of the case, the Prosecutor’s claim is that Macleod knew the guidelines regarding confidentiality have the force of law and that he repeatedly violated them with that knowledge. The counterclaim also states that Macleod has “demonstrated a bias” toward the two officers involved in the internal affairs investigation.
The result is Taylor’s request that the court issue an order against the city “disqualifying or removing Bruce Macleod as the appropriate authority.” The counterclaim adds to the issues before Gibson regarding the monitor and, by extension, the level of appropriate authority that rests with the municipality respecting the police department.
When he held oral arguments in the case May 22, Gibson promised a ruling soon. The two parties to the suit then asked the judge to hold off on any ruling while they entered into negotiations on a potential settlement. Those negotiations broke down placing the matter back in the court’s lap.
The Prosecutor had already filed his counterclaim but the press release concerning the counterclaim followed only after the termination of negotiations. According to Taylor both sides have asked Gibson to have an opportunity for additional oral arguments.
Attempts the Herald made to reach Macleod for comment on this matter were unsuccessful.
City Solicitor Anthony Monzo said he could not comment on the specific allegations in the Prosecutor’s filing since the matter is in the hands of an outside counsel for the city. Monzo did say that he knew of no request by the city for additional oral arguments and that the counterclaim would be fully responded to by the city.
The Prosecutor’s counterclaim demands that some other city official be given the role of “appropriate authority” with respect to the police department. How this would work is not clear. Judge Gibson now has this new issue as he prepares to rule in the case.
To contact Vince Conti, email vconti@cmcherald.com.