BOROUGH
OF HILLSDALE
09027
RESOLUTION
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Title: Approving and Accepting Opinion of the Judge
WHEREAS, on August 2, 2008, a Preliminary Notice of Disciplinary Action (“PNDA”) was
served by the Borough of Hillsdale Police Department (the “Department”) upon Ptl. Frederic
Vavosa (the “Officer”); and
WHEREAS, the PNDA set forth various disciplinary charges and specifications filed by the
Department against the Officer,
and advised the Officer of his right to a hearing with respect to the same; and
WHEREAS, the Officer requested a hearing with respect to such disciplinary charges and
specifications; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution, the Mayor and Council of the Borough of Hillsdale (“Hillsdale”)
appointed Judge Daniel P. Mecca, J.S.C. (Ret.) as the Hearing Officer to preside over the hearing
on the disciplinary charges and specifications; and
WHEREAS, such hearing was
conducted on October 2, 17, 24 and November 6, 2008; and
WHEREAS, after hearing the proofs and evidence presented by the parties, Judge Mecca
issued a written opinion and recommendation on January 5, 2009; and
WHEREAS, after due consideration of the opinion and recommendations of Judge Mecca,
Hillsdale wishes, by this
Resolution, to memorialize its determination in this matter.
Hillsdale, as follows:
1)
The January 5, 2009 Opinion and Recommendations of
Judge Mecca BE and HEREBY is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED including, without limitation,
his conclusions that:
a)
The actions of the Officer, as detailed in the January 5,
2009 opinion of Judge Mecca, were not within the “scope of the constructive
authority paradigm. Accordingly…the
Borough of Hillsdale Police Department’s filing of this charge against Officer Vavosa was proper.”
b)
Serving the Officer with another “reprimand or
suspension will not change the fact…that the [Officer] poses a danger to
himself and others.”
c)
The proofs and evidence presented at the hearing
warrant that the Officer be terminated because “the Borough of Hillsdale and
the safety of the public cannot be at risk in the event the [Officer’s] job
performance does not improve through progressive discipline.”
d)
The Officer’s conduct, within the 45-Day Rule, “must be
considered, not for the purpose of imposing any additional penalty for prior
conduct, but for establishing and confirming a pattern of behavior…”
e)
In light of such mitigating “circumstances and
factors”, the Governing Body has determined that the appropriate disciplinary
penalty is as follows:
2)
The employment of the Officer with the Department BE
and HEREBY is TERMINATED effective immediately.
3) The Chief of Police is authorized to promulgate and enter a Final Notice of Disciplinary Action effectuating the foregoing.
|
Council member |
Motion |
Second |
Yes |
No |
Absent |
Abstain |
|
Arnowitz, Max |
|
|
x |
|
|
|
|
DeJoseph, Jonathan |
|
|
x |
|
|
|
|
Giancarlo, Michael |
|
|
x |
|
|
|
|
Hanlon, Marie |
|
x |
x |
|
|
|
|
Schiavone, Donna |
|
|
x |
|
|
|
|
Weinstein, Andy |
x |
|
x |
|
|
|
Adopted:
Attest: ________________________ ____________________________________
Robert P. Sandt, RMC Mayor John Sapanara
Municipal
Clerk