Police Benevolent Association opposes Dec. 14 referendum

December 11, 2009
by Christine Yeres

Estuardo Pazmino, president of the New Castle Police Benevolent Association, is opposed to the referendum scheduled for Monday, December 14 that would transfer the town board’s obligation to act as hearing officer in police disciplinary hearings to a designated third party. This designated official, who would be paid on a per diem basis, would hear the case, and then turn it over to the town board for a final decision.

Typically, disciplinary actions are handled within the department, according to New Castle Police Chief Charles Ferry, but if there is no agreement as to the disposition of a case, then it is sent to the town board for resolution. Town board Supervisor Barbara Gerrard recently explained the difficulty of gathering all five board members together for such hearings, hastening to add that cases are few and far between.  See “A small, one-location, one-booth vote for a town referendum,” NewCastleNOW.org, December 4, 2009.

Pazmino, an officer with New Castle Police Department since 2000, agrees that there have been very few disciplinary actions that have required that that board convene. Still, he said, officers are uneasy with the desire of the board to off-load the job. “We don’t understand why the town board would want to change a hearing system that’s been in place since 1936,” said Pazmino. “We don’t have many issues [that would require a hearing], probably because of the caliber of officer we have on the job.” 

Gerrard has described the type of person who might be hired for the hearing officer job, on a per diem basis, as perhaps a retired police chief or administrator. Officer Pazmino explained why, from the officers’ point of view, a retired police chief as hearing officer wouldn’t be a more comfortable fit for the job. “The comfort of the person being charged is not a priority,” he said.  “We would rather have board members up there because they have a stake in the town, whereas for a third party, all it really is is a paycheck for them. Better, too, to depend on five people to hear the case than just one.”

Pazmino takes little solace from the fact that the final decision in any disciplinary action heard by a third party would still rest with the town board. “I know board members must have a lot on their plates, but if you’re not there hearing the case, you don’t really have the whole picture. Certain things might be lost in translation. That’s probably why that law was enacted, so that the people who actually had a stake in the town were the ones who would hear the case and have the final say. So it’s important that if they’re going to be the ones to say an officer is guilty or not guilty, they should hear the whole story from the officer or from the attorneys or whoever. The final say isn’t all there is. The story comes before it.”

Pazmino and the PBA are worried about the referendum. They will send out a mailing today, encouraging residents to vote “No” on Monday. “If I were to be charged I would rather have the town board there to hear my case than someone who doesn’t have a stake in the town,” reiterated Pazmino. “That’s how we felt and we wanted to be heard.”

The subject of the referendum was first in Supervisor Gerrard’s report to the town from the town board’s meeting last Tuesday. See New Castle Town Supervisor’s Report, December 8, 2009, in today’s NCNOW.org.

The polling booth is open from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Monday, December 14 at town hall, 200 South Greeley Avenue.

Tweet