Perth Amboy evening news., 1919-07-25
Cd
TIE POLICE DEPARTMENT FARCE

About the biggest farce that has yet Deen staBeu lor 1'
edifcation and amusement of the people of Perth AmDoy Is tne
way in which the Police Department is being run at the present
time. 1t would be extremely funny were it not so serious. WIN
the Police Department costing the taxpayers a larger anu idfsei
amount each year, being one of the greatest TENS IN 1e Guy
budget, the people have a right to expect more enlcieh' Ser
Ice. Instead conditions seem to be going from bad u worse
with affairs at present in about as chaotic a condition as IL s
possible to get them.
Everybody appears to be taking a hand at running the de-
partment. Just at present the sole authority In the conduct o
affairs seems to be the city attorney. The aldermen through
the chairman of the police committee, have had a hand at run
ming it. the mayor has taken a part and there has been a COM
binahon of bosses---everybody apparently, but the chief of
police.
Just what is Chief Of Police Burke at police headquarters
for. ANYWAY? If he is the chief Of police, why is he not allowed
to function as such? If he is not competent to run the ponce
force, why not get someone who Is competent?
II stands to reason that a civilian who may hold the Office
of MAYOR or alderman for a time does not know as much ABOUT
running the police force as q man who has had q lit ualnnh5
In police work. There is entirely too much putting III Oh
the part Of the city officials who ought to keep hands Off unless
there is gross ineficiency, in which case steps should De laheh
to remedy the defects.
The running OF the police department ought to be en-
tirely in the hands Of the chief of police. II he proves neon
petent to run it to the best interests of the city then it is the
duty Of the police committee of the Board OF Aldermen 10 see
that someone is made chief of police who is competent Ii III
whom they can have confidence.
Following the ridiculous situation that the aldermen
worked themselves into at the last meeting of the board when
the reports Of the police committee were under consideration
in relation to the charges against two patrolmen the officials
continue to flop around first with one opinion and then another,
unit. the man under charges does not know whether he is a
member Of the police force or not, and the city has a pracucal
demonstration of how a city ought not to be run.
AT the meeting of the Board of Aldermen there were two
reports, a majority report and one from the minority. The ma
jority report favored the reinstatement of the patrolman with
q fine of $500 and no back pay. The minority report recon-
mended the dismissal of the patrolman.
Alderman Clark moved that the report of the minority be
acted upon. This motion was carried. Then, instead of pro-
ceeding to act upon ita as the motion declared, the claim was at
once raised that the minority report had been accepted. But
n ocfiop Ubatayar had haen taken n N accantino the reDOPt. the |
motion merely being to act on it.
City Attorney %Goldberger was entirely right in insisting
that some definite action be taken one way or the other SO as
to definitely decide what was to be done with the minority re
port, which, according to the motion passed, was to be consid-
cred first. The city attorney gave an opinion that a motion
should be made to accept the report of the minority SO that it
could be voted on. If rejected then the majority report could
be considered. If accepted, then the patrolman stood dismissed
from the force.
But the advice of the city attorney was not followed. The
aldermen proceeded to reconsider their former vote which
was merely that the minority report be acted upon. Then
more opinions were called for and after a great deal of Jug
Cling it was finally brought about that the patrolman was rein
stated with a fine of 800.
In the course of several more opinions the city attorney
has said that the patrolman in question has been reinstated,
but that he ought not to be allowed to go on duty. Why should
he not go on duty if he has been reinstated?
tits understood that the city attorney has seen the charges
that the mayor has against the patrolman and has admitted the
seriousness of the charges. 1t is probable that these charges
are the basis for the city attorneys advice that the man, al
though reinstated, should not be allowed to put on the uniform
again.
But the mayor showed the evidence which he has against
the patrolman to the chairman of the police committee before
the aldermen met Monday night and suggested that the charges
already standing against the patrolman be used as a basis for
dropping him from the force so as to prevent any further
scandal.
That the chairman of the police committee was impressed
with the charge. that the mayor had in his possession, or else
he had other damaging evidence of his own, is apparent from
the fact that when it was thought that the minority report of
the police committee had been adopted Diminishing the patrol
man whose case was under consideration, the chairman re-
marked on the floor of the council that 'the police force will
be better off without this man. If that is the way the chair
man of the police committee felt about the man, why did he
sign the report recommending that the man be reinstated and
why did he vote to reinstate him?
But as the man stands reinstated there is nothing left for
the mayor to do, if he is to retain the confidence of the people,
but to go ahead with his charges It is UNDERSTOOD however,
that these charges are of a rather unsavory nature and would
open up a scandal that would do no one any good. The one way
out is to have the patrolman resign. There is reason to believe