May 1, 2013 THE VILLADOM TIMES IV • Page 3 Mahwah Committee seeks counsel on police overtime issue by Frank J. McMahon The Mahwah Township Council has voted 5-2 to have an ad hoc committee of the council interview attorneys to determine the feasibility of proceeding with an investigation to determine who authorized local police officers to attend Tuesday night court sessions on overtime. According to Council President Harry Williams, that overtime resulted in a net cost of $75,000 to the township because police overtime increased by $187,000 between 2011 and 2012 while the number of summonses that resulted in revenue rose from 5,600 to 7,600. When notified last December that the police overtime expense would exceed the budgeted amount for 2012, the council transferred $85,000 to cover that excess expense. But the debate over who authorized police officers to attend Tuesday night court sessions on overtime has been ongoing at several council meetings since February, when the council first reviewed the police department budget for 2013. Mahwah Township Attorney Andrew Fede advised the council at its last public meeting that based on his review of the state’s statutes and case law, the governing body has the authority to conduct an investigation, but he would not be able to counsel the governing body regarding that investigation. Fede explained that he would have a conflict of interest because he represents the entire township and, in this case, there is a difference of opinion between the mayor and the council, and he cannot represent anyone on the council individually or collectively. “I can’t choose sides or simultaneously advise everyone,” he said. “If you wish to move forward, before you do so, you have to hire a special counsel to advise the council.” Mayor William Laforet advised the council by letter right before that meeting that he has already retained an attorney in this matter. Councilman Roy Larson asked if the cost of the mayor’s attorney would be borne by the township. Laforet declined to answer, but Williams confirmed that, if the council hires an attorney, it would be a township expense. Larson asked if there was any wrongdoing involved and questioned the hiring of attorneys. He asked, “Is there a consequence to the person who did approve it? If there is no consequence, why hire attorneys?” Councilman Charles “Chuck” Jandris also commented about the proposed investigation, saying, “We’re spending taxpayer money to find out who spent taxpayer money.” “It’s more complicated than that,” Councilman John Roth responded. “Somebody approved the expense and we found out about it a year later. There is something systemic here.” “The reason to find out is to tell that person not to do it again,” Williams said. “That’s the only question. The only question is ‘who’ in order to prevent it from happening again.” He emphasized that the public wants to know why this money was spent. Roth made a motion to form a council subcommittee, which was seconded by Councilman Steven Sbarra and supported by Councilwoman Lisa DiGiulio, and Councilmen Roth, Sbarra, Larson, and Williams. Jandris and Councilman John Spiech voted against the motion without further comment. Roth, Sbarra, and Larson volunteered to serve on that committee, which will seek out an appropriate attorney and find out the potential cost of proceeding with the investigation so the full council can then decide whether to proceed. Spiech emphasized that if the investigation does proceed, it would only be to find out who in 2011 changed the procedure whereby police officers writing summonses appear in court on Tuesday nights. Several residents who said they were speaking as taxpayers have questioned the overtime expense at recent council meetings. They also spoke at this meeting, with the majority voicing support for the investigation. One citizen questioned who would pay for that investigation. Johnson Avenue resident Maryann Mauro said she had come to the meeting to hear about the township’s budget that was to be adopted, but was moved to speak about the $514,000 police overtime expense. She questioned the hiring of attorneys in the matter. “Now we’re retaining two attorneys?” she asked. “What’s the logic? It’s not a big deal if there was nothing inappropriate. Now the taxpayers will pay both attorneys?” (continued on page 8)