Bordentown Township Scrutinizes Plan to Merge Police Force With Bordentown City

 

As reported by nj.com, a consultant’s report on the advantages of sharing Bordentown Township and Bordentown City police services was met with skepticism from the public, though officials urged people to give the idea serious consideration. Despite being separate municipalities, the two Bordentowns could and should have a shared police force, according to the presentation, which consisted of findings from a 2 ½ year study conducted by Patriot Consulting Group, a Longbranch-based local government operations consulting firm.

Patriot concluded that the move would not produce savings for the municipalities, but would increase police services at no extra expense for taxpayers. Patriot’s president, Brian Valentino, said shared police services was already happening across the two municipalities and his plan would simply formalize the procedures for those situations. His group also recommended that the move be a step toward an eventual consolidation of the two police forces. 

Once the police departments are fully unified, services would increase through the creation of a new division dedicated to community activities, such as youth clubs, according to Valentino’s recommendations. The report also calls for the creation of individual traffic, patrolling and criminal investigation bureaus that would allow officers to specialize in those areas, rather than generally work in all three, Valentino said. Still, the idea seemed unpopular with many residents at a public meeting, who also seemed to believe the move could not be accomplished without costing taxpayers more.

Sharing services is becoming more commonplace in New Jersey as costs rise and governing officials seeks alternatives to raising taxes. Many, including some state officials, are advocating full consolidation of services and even municipalities. However, the loss of local control, other political ramifications and the costs to wealthier towns of merging with less affluent districts have been insurmountable obstacles in many cases.

In Hightstown, a four-year discussion to consolidate police forces with neighbor East Windsor fell apart recently, when Hightstown Borough Council members made a decision to instead renew their town’s police contracts for another five years. Princeton Township and Borough are weighing something more ambitious, a total consolidation of the two municipalities. Late last month a panel of representatives from both towns recommended that the towns’ governing bodies consider holding a referendum on the issue.

As for the Bordentowns, the plan will remain in the discussion phase for some time before the municipalities decide to take any actions, according to Bordentown Township Mayor Michael Dauber.

Denial of Accidental Disability Retirement Application Upheld

 

On October 13, 2009, the Appellate Division decided Raymond Joseph Foster, III v. Board of Trustees, Police and Firemen’s Retirement System, Docket No.: A-5666-07T2. In the case, Raymond Joseph Foster, III, a member of the Police and Firemen’s Retirement System (“PFRS”), appealed from the final decision of the Board of Trustees (“Board”), upholding the May 5, 2008 initial decision of Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Jeff Masin, finding that Foster “has failed to meet his burden to prove that the total and permanent disability from which he suffers is the direct result of the injuries received in the traumatic event [Foster suffered on March 5, 2002].”

Foster started working as a Bordentown Township police officer in February 1998. On March 5, 2002 at 9:51 p.m., Foster was injured in a motor vehicle accident, while working as a police officer. The police report indicated that it was a one-vehicle accident. Foster was responding to the ACME supermarket. As he entered the parking lot, he turned right, but missed the entrance and struck a light pole to the left of the entrance. At the time, Foster was thirty-seven years old.

More than four years later, in September 2006, Foster stopped working. According to Foster, he could no longer tolerate the pain, which had become more constant and excruciating. It was undisputed that Foster was totally and permanently disabled and unable to perform his work duties. Thereafter, Foster applied to the Board for accidental disability retirement benefits. The Board denied the application on the grounds that Foster’s disability was not a direct result of the automobile accident, thus he did not qualify for accidental disability benefits.

Foster challenged that decision. The matter was transferred to the Office of Administrative Law as a contested case. After hearings were conducted, ALJ Masin found that Foster’s application should be denied, concluding that Foster’s present disability was not the direct result of the accident. This appeal ensued.

On appeal, Foster contended that the decision of ALJ Masin and the Board was not supported by the evidence. The Appellate Division disagreed. Based on its review of the record, the Court found that the Board’s findings were supported by the appropriate proofs and, therefore, its decision was supported by sufficient credible evidence on the record as a whole. As such, the Board’s decision was affirmed.