Cape May Opens File on Police Department, Details Focus on ‘Comp’ Time Practices

CAPE MAY – The City of Cape May has been embroiled in controversy since the March 3 meeting of City Council. Then council voted to rescind the appointment of Robert Sheehan as police chief one day before his probationary period ended. The action was shrouded in innuendo due to the fact that the city felt it could not release details of an ongoing investigation involving an officer in the police department, and also potentially involving Sheehan and retired Chief Diane Sorantino.
Enough was said at the meeting, to make the public aware that some form of investigation was being discussed but not enough to clarify why it impacted Sheehan’s status.
The city held a press conference March 19 that focused on a timeline of events that laid out the city’s narrative regarding the investigation that played such a major part in the council deliberations and vote concerning Sheehan.
The timeline (26 pages, available on the city website) begins with a July 10, 2014 letter from Policemen’s Benevolent Association Local 59 attorney Charles E. Schlager Jr. In the city’s narrative, that letter to City Manager Bruce MacLeod initiated the concern that “Lt. Lear of the Cape May Police Department had accumulated a significant amount of compensatory time in violation of the city’s policy and in violation of his contract.” The letter is part of the press release as Exhibit A. It is worth taking a look at this first exhibit in the release. The remark is a reference to Lt. Clarence Lear who is still a member of the Cape May department.
At the start of the timeline, the city’s release of documents raises new questions. The letter never mentioned Lear. It mentions the “issue of excessive compensatory time for certain superior officers,” but there is no direct mention of Lear, and the reference to compensatory time uses the plural implying more than one superior officer. The letter goes on to deal with its real purpose which is the denial of “PBA time” for an officer who was the delegate to the union and its local representative.
In the context of that discussion, the practice of “PBA time” for the officer to attend union business was called a “long-standing practice” in the unit predating the appointment of Sheehan as chief. The letter claims that the practice was ended when Sheehan “was confronted by city administration regarding the issue.”
The PBA did not raise the issue of Lear in that letter. That letter’s purpose was something else entirely. The brief reference to superior officer timesheets was an aside to the letter’s purpose. With regard to the discrepancies in time sheets, the letter states “Without formal notification certain elected officials received word if (sic) these discrepancies.”
The previous press release issued by the city, did not include the exhibit, stated “This letter reported significant abuses of paid leave by Lt. Lear.” The current press release, which includes a copy of the letter, shows the letter barely mentioned the issue and never mentioned Lear.
The narrative across both releases implies that the city had been put on notice in an official way by the PBA. The exhibit supplied by the city had a different purpose entirely and claims that the issue of superior officers, in the plural, claiming compensatory time was informally given to an elected official(s) and was not part of the PBA’s “formal notification.”
The city’s narrative, as presented in the second press release and its supporting documentation, does shed light on the council meeting that initiated the controversy.
A March 2 letter from the County Prosecutor’s Office is provided and states that “The investigation will include a review of Chief Sheehan’s actions.” It went on to say there would be an evaluation as to “whether any witness or party willfully provided false information during a criminal investigation.” It was this sentence that was referenced more than once in the council meeting discussions, but it was never read to the public as it was deemed confidential. According to Solicitor Anthony Monzo, the only two individuals the county interviewed were Sheehan and his predecessor Sorantino.
Sheehan stated, at the council meeting, that the investigation was administrative and not criminal. Later statements by County Prosecutor Robert Taylor appear to verify that claim.
The reference to “criminal investigation” in the March 2 letter and of possible false testimony led council to attempt to reach Robert Johnson, First Assistant Prosecutor, during closed session March 3. The letter raised doubts about the nature of the investigation and Sheehan’s role. The city’s position at the press conference was that council faced the need to act without being able to get any further guidance from the Prosecutor’s Office.
While the city’s desire to provide better information to the public concerning one context for its actions regarding Sheehan is understandable, it is unclear that the press release achieved that goal or merely raised a different set of issues and questions.
Residents will not have long to wait to see if the city’s narrative and timeline have eased the controversy. City council scheduled its next meeting for March 24 at 7 p.m. at Convention Hall, to accommodate what is expected to be a crowd too large for its City Hall auditorium.
That meeting, rescheduled from the normal third Tuesday time and place, will also involve a discussion of the 2015 budget.
According to Council member Shaine Meier, the agenda will also include discussion of how council will deal with the vacant seat of Jerry Inderwies, who resigned over the Sheehan controversy.
The likelihood is that questions related to the press conference, press release, and Sheehan’s case in general will dominate the public comment period.
Patricia Hendricks, one of those who milled in Convention Hall outside the press conference, spoke to MacLeod after the meeting about the need for more space for all the residents who, she feels, will want to speak on the issue.
The press conference and press release did not appear to improve the city’s relationship with County Prosecutor Robert Taylor. Taylor previously reacted angrily to the city’s references to the investigation in the last council meeting and to the city’s previous press release which listed Monzo as spokesman. He called the city’s actions “outrageous.”
Taylor subsequently installed a monitor in the police department. That person serves as a buffer between Sheehan and city officials. When contacted about the latest press conference and press release, Taylor said “Again the city is releasing information about an internal affairs investigation contrary to Attorney General guidelines.”
Taylor added that the AG guidelines “carry the force of law.” Taylor would not confirm that an investigation is active at this time. “What the city is doing is unfair and a denial of due process,” Taylor added.
In part the city defended its release of information by referencing the fact that it has consulted “with labor counsel concerning the impact of releasing information.” When asked for the name of the labor counsel the city consulted, MacLeod said he was not prepared to release that information and that the matter was handled through Monzo.
The March 19 press conference was the city’s attempt “to clarify for the city’s residents much misinformation that has been circulating throughout the community.”
While that was the stated intent, the city decided it would reach out to residents only through the media. The press conference at Convention Hall was closed to anyone lacking media credentials.
Residents who had heard of the conference and who showed up at the hall were uniformly denied access to the area where the conference was being held. County media and Philadelphia television stations attended the conference.
Many residents who showed up were active members of the community. They milled around in the hallway a short distance from the press conference and many fumed at being kept out.
Included in that group was Councilman Shaine Meier, who said he was not allowed into the press conference. MacLeod, leaving the meeting, was asked directly by Meier why this had happened and responded that “You could have come in.”
The implication was some form of a mix-up in security procedures. Meier said he had received no email notification of the press conference.
The press conference was not open to the public. In the group outside the conference were former mayors, Jerry Gaffney and Robert Elwell. Detective Weeks, the police department’s monitor appointed by Taylor, was refused access as was a representative of Sheehan’s.
A number of interested residents including Charles Hendricks, an unsuccessful candidate for council in the last election, attempted to gain access and was turned away.
Gaffney, who served on the Cape May Council for 16 years, including four as mayor and who served eight years on the council in Medford Lakes prior to moving to Cape May, called it “unconstitutional.” Gaffney said he ‘has never seen anything like it in his public career and went on to call it a “betrayal of the public trust.”
Hendricks said of those gathered in the hall, “we’re the story, not what is going on in that room.”
To contact Vince Conti, email vconti@cmcherald.com.