Written Decision Pending for Police Personnel Records

MORRISTOWN—Two Appellate Division judges said they would issue a written decision at a future daye about whether the details of Officer Roy George's suspension from the Department should be made public after they Wednesday.

Attorney Richard Gutman argued the length of the suspension should be released to "educate the people if the penalty is sufficient."

Gutman of Montclair represents John Paff of Somerset in an effort to get Chatham Borough to release the length of time that George was suspended for on a Westfield sidewalk on Oct. 12, 2009.

"Leaving a loaded gun on a sidewalk is serious," Gutman said. "We should know the length of the suspension."

Jamie Plosia, the borough's labor attorney, argued in reply that that "this was a narrow, narrow, narrow case." Paff, he said, already agreed that the state's common law and Open Public Records Act do not allow the release to the public of the information in a public employee's records, and that information would be necessary for the public to determine the fairness of the suspension.

Further, he said, the question of privacy in this case is up to George, since it is his right of privacy that is being questioned. George was not called as a witness by Gutman.

The judges sitting in Morristown who sued last year to get the length of George's suspension released, appealed a December decision issued by Superior Court Judge Theodore Bozonelis, who sided with the borough.

Bozonelis, in denying Paff's request for the term of suspension, cited the privacy rights of public employees and the potential "chilling" effect of such a ruling on the ability of a govenment to discipline employees.

The incident was widely reported in local media, including Chatham Patch.

Gutman argued that because the incident, demotion and suspension were public, the public interest would be served by the release of the length of the suspension.

"We're looking for two words," Gutman said. "Two days. Two weeks." Whatever the length of the suspension was. The public should be able to judge if the suspension was adequate in light of the serious nature of the incident, he said.

But Plosia said that without knowing the extenuating circumstances of the incident, the public would be unable to judge whether the length of the suspension was adequate or not.

For example, he said, in a purely hypothetical situation, what if the intoxication was related to an interaction of alcohol with a medication taken for a serious illness. That medical information would not be made public.

Plosia also raised the question about how far the public should be able to probe into the records of public employees, and how many rights public employees should be asked to give up.

He said a Chatham ordinance requires an employee's demotion to be detemined by a public vote by the borough council. He said that is an usual ordinance.

While a demotion is public record, the length of a suspension is not, Plosia said.