Third Hearing Held in Sheehan Case, City Seeks Top Cop’s 16-Day Suspension

CAPE MAY – Day three of Capt. Robert Sheehan’s hearing concerning administrative charges brought by Cape May took place May 11.
Day one was almost three months ago Feb. 17. Details on the first two hearings were reported here Feb. 24 and March 9.
Sheehan has been charged with failure to qualify with his firearm in a way that satisfied state Attorney General and Cape May City guidelines in 2009. The hearing involved only administrative charges. 
The need to emphasize the administrative nature of the hearing stemmed from the fact that the proceedings involved multiple references to criminal violations brought by the city’s attorney Todd Gelfand who repeatedly stated that Sheehan committed a second-degree felony by carrying his weapon without proper qualification.
The city maintained throughout that the 2009 infraction was a serious violation that municipal officials learned of only in 2015 when retired police sergeant Rusty Chew filed an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request for the qualification data.
The hearing is the latest event in a more than one-year conflict between the city and the top commander of its police department.
In March 2015, city council failed to confirm Sheehan as chief of police one day before his year-long probationary period in the position ended. The action effectively demoted Sheehan back to his previous rank of captain but left him in charge of the department.
The issue at the time was a dispute over Sheehan’s role in an alleged abuse of compensatory time by his second-in-command Lt. Clarence Lear. At that meeting in March 2015, council members heard Solicitor Anthony Monzo read a portion of a letter that indicated Sheehan was under criminal investigation by the County Prosecutor’s office.
That interpretation of the investigation was later disputed by the Prosecutor’s Office which found no criminal activity and maintained that the investigation at that time was not a criminal one.
Given that the most the city is seeking through the Civil Service hearing is a temporary suspension of Sheehan, the constant repetition of claims of criminal misconduct in a public meeting concerning the individual the city had made chief and, even after his demotion, had allowed continuing to run its police department, is the kind of publicity municipalities seek to avoid.
The City’s Argument
Gelfand summarized the case for the city by stating that the defense presented no evidence that the violation did not occur. The Attorney General’s guidelines state an officer must qualify twice in a calendar year and that the two qualifications must be at least 90 days apart. Gelfand maintained that Sheehan qualified Oct. 27 and Dec. 21, 2009. His two qualifications missed the 90-day separation by a month.
Gelfand further maintained that the city had not taken action against then police Chief Diane Sorantino and Lear. Both qualified on the same days. The city only discovered the violation in 2015 and both had each retired by the time the investigation was complete.
Gelfand deflected the defense’s argument that Sheehan had not “knowingly” violated the regulation by stating that he had been given and was trained on the guidelines in the same year as the alleged violation occurred. 
For the city, the case came down to the fact that a violation occurred, Sheehan had a responsibility to know the guidelines, and the city had a right, even an obligation, to pursue a penalty for the action when it became known.
The city’s summation went to great length to defend the integrity of its star witness, Officer Douglas Henderson, departmental firearms instructor, who testified that he made Sorantino aware of the problem with qualification even though he authored a memorandum, later sent to the Prosecutor’s Office in an annual report, which stated all officers had qualified.
Henderson’s role in this is at the crux of much debate. The Prosecutor’s Office saw Henderson as the individual responsible for ensuring that everyone qualified with the correct spacing between attempts.
The defense made much of the fact that Henderson did not directly inform Sheehan that his spacing between attempts was not acceptable. The city maintains Henderson did his duty by informing Sorantino, who testified she remembered no such conversation. The city claims the responsibility rested squarely with the individual officer, in this case, Sheehan, to comply with the policy.
As an added defense for his not pursuing the matter, Henderson said that he feared reprisal even though he cited no examples where he was threatened or pressured.
The Defense
Again stripping away much of the adornment, the defense summarization was straightforward.
The city has gone back seven years to bring charges for a firearms qualification issue against an individual, Sheehan, who has been on the force 25 years, has been and is its highest ranking officer for two years, and whose alleged violation was that he qualified twice in 2009 but failed by a month to have the required 90-day spacing between attempts.
Sheehan’s attorney, Christopher Grey, painted Henderson as the individual who failed in his responsibilities and who even misrepresented events in writing. Grey said that Sheehan had never been directly told he violated any guidelines. Grey noted that the Prosecutor’s Office dismissed any issue of criminal intent or offense and that the Attorney General’s Office complied in that decision, the latter fact disputed by Gelfand.
Grey said Sheehan had “qualified in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2015.” Yet, Grey noted, the city has gone back “seven years to bring these charges. Seven years,” and in a quiet voice, “seven years.”
The implication of his statement ties back to opening day of the hearing when the defense made clear that it saw a link between the city’s action now and the outstanding lawsuit filed by Sheehan against the city over his demotion in March 2015.
Grey referenced the decision of the Prosecutor’s Office and the testimony of that office’s lead investigator stating that the offense was a minor one. They used documents from the prosecutor to deflect Gelfand’s continuous use of references to serious criminal violations. It is the job of the County Prosecutor to decide if a criminal violation occurred and warrants charged.
For the city’s case to stand, it needed to undermine the investigation by the prosecutor, and it tried hard to do so, risking further alienation of the lead law enforcement official in the county.
The city needed to dispel the notion that the Attorney General’s office agreed with the prosecutor, and it tried to do that as well. It needed to defend the integrity of its main witness, Henderson, against claims that he failed in his responsibilities and even misrepresented what he testified were the facts, and they tried mightily to do that.
The city also needed to emphasize the seriousness of the offense in order to justify taking action on a seven-year-old alleged violation against an individual who no one disputes qualified every other year. The continuous claims that Sheehan had committed a ‘second degree felony’ were the city’s attempt to do that.
The Mess
What is at stake is much more than the 16-day suspension sought by the city. The controversy over Sheehan’s role in the department is in its 15th month. As that on-going struggle has taken different turns, the city has twice gone to court against the County Prosecutor. Once to remove the monitor placed in the police department and once to quash a subpoena.
Lear retired as part of a settlement over the alleged misuse of compensatory time. In the eyes of many residents, Lear was forced out over a matter that Jack Wichterman, a member of council when the issue arose, said he thought was purely administrative and one he felt would be handled by City Manager Bruce MacLeod.
Instead, the compensatory time issue became the central one in the action to demote the then chief.
That action cost the resignation of a member of the council. It also led to a failed attempt to recall Mayor Edward Mahaney.
The city twice issued press releases containing information related to an internal affairs investigation, in violation of the same Attorney General’s guidelines the city now champions in the firearms hearing. That action led to the department’s monitor.
Throughout all of this, Sheehan has remained the top law enforcement official in the city. He is the lone officer above the rank of sergeant. Sheehan was removed as chief and yet left in charge for the last 15 months.
If the city is successful in gaining the 16-day suspension, Sheehan would return to the department as its top command officer. The man repeatedly accused of serious criminal actions by Gelfand would still be the one entrusted with the municipality’s public safety. For many in the public, that does not compute.
Jerry Gaffney, a former mayor; Patricia Hendricks, a resident and local real estate broker, Robert Boyd, a former police chief and many others, have repeatedly expressed a desire to see the matter resolved, including the suit Sheehan has brought against the city.
Monzo has responded each time by saying Sheehan’s attorney has not made any potential settlement offers. At no time has Monzo or any other official said that the city had made any overtures for a settlement.
The stalemate continues with the hearing just concluded only the latest brawl in a contest that shows no sign it is near an end.
The hearing officer has 20 days to codify his fact-finding and formulate a recommendation in the firearms violation case. 
Any decision on a penalty will ultimately rest with MacLeod.
To contact Vince Conti, email vconti@cmcherald.com.