Readers are owed responsible reporting and commentary

One thing News Transcript Managing Editor Mark Rosman is right about in his column ("Town Owed Answers About Investigation," News Transcript, June 17) — not everyone sees common sense the same way. For instance, common sense and responsible journalism would seem to dictate that newspapers would report the news and ascertain the facts and the law before commenting erroneously on both.

The facts are that on Jan. 29, 2008, based on information from witnesses, the Freehold Borough police stopped a motor vehicle in order to determine whether one of the occupants had been involved in a serious assault that took place a few blocks away just before the motor vehicle stop. Contrary to the (column), the vehicle that was stopped was, in fact, the vehicle they intended to stop. A passenger in that vehicle had been involved in an altercation the previous night (Jan. 28) with members of the same family as that night's (Jan. 29) victim.

The motor vehicle stop resulted in criminal charges filed against the driver and a juvenile passenger. The driver of the vehicle made allegations of police brutality, which allegations were not sustained by the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office.

The Freehold Borough Police Department undertook its own internal affairs investigation which resulted in minor charges being levied. A hearing on those charges was requested. The hearing has been scheduled and adjourned several times because the driver and juvenile would not testify while their criminal charges were pending.

The borough, desiring to present all sides at the hearing, carried the hearing while awaiting resolution of the criminal matters. Unfortunately, those criminal matters have yet to be heard.

The disciplinary hearing, originally scheduled in 2008, had been scheduled for May 28, 2009, but was adjourned to June 17 due to scheduling conflicts. It has since been heard. The alleged victims were again given the opportunity to appear and testify, and through their attorney, declined.

As the editor points out, the matter has been pending for 18 months. It is not fair to the police officers, the police department, the borough or the public to continue to delay the matter indefinitely. In answer to the (column's) question, the decision to hold the hearing and bring the internal disciplinary action to a conclusion was made well before the June 1 Borough Council meeting.

So initially the editor holds the borough to task for delaying the disciplinary hearing - and then similarly chastises the borough for scheduling it. And he talks about common sense? Did he even think to confirm with Migdalia Irizarry's attorney that she would not testify until her charges were resolved?

Isn't it common sense to delay as long as possible so that the hearing officer could hear her side of the story? Of course it is equally perplexing why Ms. Irizarry would appear at a public meeting and complain that the disciplinary matter had not yet been resolved when her refusal to testify until her criminal charges were resolved was the reason for the delay.

Mr. Rosman claims common sense was missing at the public meeting when the

council refused to give specific information about a specific employee.

A public employee has a right to privacy and their personnel record is not a public record. Legally, the borough cannot release the name of any individual under investigation. The council can and did confirm that as a result of the incident of Jan. 29, 2008, an internal affairs investigation was conducted and minor charges were levied.

A hearing had already been scheduled and has since been held. The hearing officer will issue a decision on whether the charges were sustained or not in approximately 45 days. If the charges are sustained, the requisite discipline will be imposed.

The borough is not at liberty to disclose information about any specific officer or employee. The editor was not at the meeting, never contacted any borough official or professional for comment or an explanation of the process and appears to be relying solely on the opinion of Ms. Irizarry and her supporters.

The editor irresponsibly mentions terms such as "official misconduct." At no point was there ever an allegation of official misconduct - a rather serious criminal charge. That is just blatantly irresponsible journalism. Apparently, a newsperson's common sense does not include fact checking before making baseless allegations about the governing body and police department.

As the (column) points out, the borough immediately acknowledged that it would conduct an internal affairs investigation into the incident and take the requisite action. The public has been kept informed to the extent that it is legally authorized.

The borough acted responsibly in delaying the hearing as long as possible in order to give all parties the opportunity to be heard. Freehold residents deserve responsible leadership. That would include refraining from releasing information about an employee that would result in liability to the borough and expense to its residents. The public will be advised of the hearing officer's decision as soon as it is received.
Freehold Borough Mayor
and Borough Council
Police Chief Mitchell Roth
Freehold Borough PBA Local 159
Freehold Borough