Paper Tearing Shows Sentiment, Sheehan Case Remains Unresolved

CAPE MAY – What has become known in Cape May as the “Sheehan case” refers to much more than the lawsuit of the former police chief against the city for failing to confirm him as the permanent chief.
His appointment became embroiled in a legal, administrative and political brouhaha following a March 2015 city council meeting. At that meeting, he was demoted to his former rank of captain one day before the end of his probationary period as chief.
Technically the Sheehan case does refer to that specific lawsuit, but within the context of Cape May politics, the term came to be used for the convoluted interconnection of lawsuits, administrative hearings, name calling, agitated public meetings and simply embarrassing optics which the county’s namesake resort has lived with for well over two years.
City council had a brief business meeting Aug. 15 which ended with a move of the council to closed session to consider issues related to court-required settlement discussions.
The formal lawsuit, filed March 25, 2015, has reached a phase where the court will seek a possible settlement before beginning a formal trial.
What made the brief meeting stand out was an egregious break in the decorum that has characterized council meetings since the administration of Mayor Clarence Lear took office in January.
A Conflict of Interest?
The public comment period allowed resident Jules Rauch to use the podium to speak on the Sheehan deliberations.
Rauch articulated his understanding of the state regulations concerning real or perceived conflict of interest on the part of elected officials considered public business in which they have a concern or a bias.
Rauch argued that Lear, given his involvement in a time-use controversy that sparked the then city council to refrain from confirming Sheehan as permanent chief of police, should recuse himself from any and all discussions and votes regarding city policy on the lawsuit.
There are those who would and do take both sides of that argument. Rauch’s remarks would normally have evoked no overt reaction even if Lear and the council were inclined to take them under serious advisement.
Rauch had written his comments and provided a copy of the two-page document to all members of council before he read it.
Ripped in Half
As he concluded and turned to return to his seat, Deputy Mayor Shaine Meier held the document in front of himself and, with no attempt to disguise his actions, tore the remarks in half and then in half again.
The action upset some members of the audience who discussed it following the council’s move to closed session. It was a visible sign of the tensions that still linger within the council on all issues regarding the Sheehan case.
Popular Video
In addition to those present, the Live Stream video post of the meeting showed 103 views.
Why Meier felt the need to so publically telegraph his feelings at this point in the controversy is unclear. It was out of character for a council that has tried hard for six months to reverse the contentious nature of council meetings in 2016 and to treat all public comments with at least quiet respect.
Support for Citizen
One further clue to tensions on this issue came from an email to this reporter from Council member Roger Furlin who stated that he firmly supported the position taken by Rauch.
Furlin indicated that Lear had taken part in closed session discussions concerning the Sheehan case.
Again, one could make a strong argument on either side of that issue.
What the action by Meier may indicate is his fear that without Lear’s participation the council would be deadlocked, a conclusion one could draw from past votes in which Meier moved to reinstate Sheehan only to lose the votes of Furlin and Bea Pessagno.
Patricia Hendricks, who was not then a member of council, often spoke out in public comment period favoring reinstatement.
Whatever the outcome of Rauch’s comments on Lear’s need for recusal, the case that has roiled the city for so long is still capable of evoking strong emotion.
The newest indication was the visual and audible tearing of Rauch’s remarks before the speaker could even return to his chair, the sound amplified by the new microphones for the sake of viewers streaming the meeting.
Ordinance Introduced
In 2016 the then city council approved amendments to an ordinance that accomplished three things:
* Altered construction permit fees in some case raising them to conform to state requirements.
* Required specific homeowners to gain flood prevention certificates relating to flood damage mitigation requirements. 
* Required a continuing occupancy certificate which was meant, based on council discussions at the time, to improve public safety by ensuring that property owners were not violating safety codes.
One example often used was a property owner attempting to squeeze more potential renters into a seasonally-rented property.
The new ordinance introduced by the current council states that recent actions by the city to establish a Fire Prevention Bureau and the requirement that the bureau conduct inspections of all homes in the city mean that “authorized periodic inspections of structures throughout the city” will already occur.
The proposed ordinance continues by stating that the inspections process by the bureau “satisfies” the city requirement in the 2016 ordinance for safety inspections.
The safety inspections proposed under the old and new versions of the ordinance are not identical.
One difference is that the new ordinance contains no public disclosure burdens which had been opposed by city real estate agents.
At the Sept. 19 city council meeting there will be a public hearing on this newly-introduced ordinance before a vote can take place for its adoption.
To contact Vince Conti, email vconti@cmcherald.com.