EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ’ S REPORT
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ’ S REPORT
MITCHELL C . SKLAR
15 Years Ago This Month : NJ Appellate Division Addresses 40A : 14-118
In the September 19 , 2009 edition of the New Jersey Police Chief Magazine , I published the below article regarding an important Appellate Division decision interpreting 40A : 14-118 , as well as the required structure and validity of municipal police ordinances , and specifically clarifies the language that meets the criteria established by the NJ Supreme Court in the Reuter case . In light of recent discussions that we have had with multiple chiefs and local officials , I thought it would be helpful to revisit this case and important analysis provided by the Appellate Division .
—————————————————————————————————————————
The New Jersey Police Chief Magazine | September 2024
The Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court has recently issued a published decision that discusses provisions of N . J . S . A . 40A : 14-118 , commonly referred to as the “ Police Chiefs Responsibility Act ” or the “ Police Chiefs Bill of Rights .” This newly published decision is important in several ways . It deals with the required structure and validity of municipal police ordinances , and specifically clarifies the language that meets the criteria established by the Supreme Court in the Reuter case . It confirms the use of ordinances that authorize “ up to ” a specified number of each rank within a department , as well as provisions dealing with “ terminal leave .” This new ruling also discusses at length the nature and underlying purpose of the “ Chiefs Statute ,” and confirms that it was intended to reduce political interference ( as opposed to civilian oversight ) in the operations of the municipal police function .
The new case , captioned Loigman v . Township of Middletown , ( approved for publication on August 5 , 2009 ), concerned the validity of a Middletown Township ordinance creating its police department . The trial court had held that the ordinance did not comply with N . J . S . A . 40A : 14-118 , as interpreted in Reuter v . Borough Council of Fort Lee , 328 N . J . Super . 547 , 554 ( App . Div . 2000 ), aaf ’ d in part , rev ’ d in part , 167 N . J . 38 ( 2001 ), because it did not contain a description of the duties of the various ranks or an organizational chart specifying a line of authority within the police department . The Appellate panel disagreed and reversed .
The court explained that , in Reuter , the Supreme Court affirmed that “ the type and number of police positions [ must be ] created by ordinance . The underlying rationale for that determination rested primarily on the fact that , because of the importance and cost of police positions , the positions should be created only through the formality and public involvement attendant to the adoption of an ordinance , as opposed to merely a resolution , and to inform the public of the approximate cost , based upon the maximum number of officers within each rank .
Following the Reuter decision , Middletown amended its police ordinance to specify the order of rank and maximum number of officers within each rank . As amended , the ordinance provided for no more than the following within each rank : chief ( 1 ), deputy chief ( 2 ), captain ( 1 ), lieutenant ( 10 ), sergeant ( 13 ), patrol officer ( 81 ). In March 2006 , Middletown again amended the ordinance . The primary purpose of the amendment was to add to the “ Organizational Structure ” section of the ordinance a third entity to be known as the “ Professional Standards Division ,” and to specify its functions . The two preexisting divisions were the “ Uniformed Division ” and the “ Technical Services Division .”
This ordinance also amended the authorized membership of the department to delete the rank of captain , to increase the maximum number of deputy chiefs to three , and to reduce the maximum number of lieutenants to nice . The plaintiff in this case was a civilian not affiliated with the police department . He alleged that the Township Administrator , acting as the Township ’ s appointing authority , made certain promotional appointments pursuant to the Ordinance to the positions of deputy police chief and lieutenant . He alleged that the Ordinance did not comply with the requirements of Reuter , as a result of which “[ s ] ome of the appointments made by the appointing authority were to positions not created by a valid ordinance prior to the appointment .” He sought judgment voiding such appointments . On July 13 , 2006 , the trial court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff . The circumstance that gave rise to that order dealt solely with the number of authorized officers within each rank with relation to the promotions made .
The decision had nothing to do with the absence in the ordinance of an organizational chart or a description of duties of the officers within each rank . More particularly , a lieutenant had put in for retirement and was on “ terminal leave ,” using accrued leave time prior to his actual retirement date . Another lieutenant was promoted to the new deputy chief position created by the Ordinance . Two sergeants were promoted to the rank of lieutenant . One filled the vacancy of the individual who was promoted to deputy chief . The other filled the position of the lieutenant out on terminal leave . The
5
Continued on next page