Hackensack, NJ Community Message Boards
General Category => Hackensack Discussion => Topic started by: itsme on July 11, 2005, 08:59:43 AM
-
[Editor's note: This topic was split from "City Council Election"]
I believe the Record article "Hackensack chance" had a great deal of validity. This is " an opportunity for the city government to ease the distrust and alienation many minority residents feel toward law enforcement and City Hall.” Towards that end, a civilian complaint review board would be a move in the right direction. Any allegations against a law enforcment officer would then be reviewed by a board made of both citizens and law enforcement officers. While there are many great things in Hackensack, there are some that are not so great. I think rather than alienating each other, we should move towards correcting the problems and working together.
With regard to the diversity issue, just walk into city hall. That issue speaks for itself. I believe there may be one African American inidividual working there. I believe there is only one working in the municipal court. The majority of African American employees of Hackensack work for the Sanitation Department. It is not an issue of individuals not applying for the position or not having the qualifications. I have spoken to many minority residents of Hackensack and many have applied but were not hired. These issues need to be addressed. If all of us truly are looking for Hackensack to be the best Hackensack it can be, be up for the challenge. I am.
-
"itsme" you sound refreshingly intelligent! however you need to do more homework-our City operates under state civil service laws-hiring and promotions are determined by competitive exams-why do you think that the police and fire departments have been out in the minority communities encouraging people to prepare for and take these tests?
it is a real problem ,i agree,but to suggest discrimination in hiring is just way off base.
police review board? is that legal in New Jersey?better ask the City attorney
im not saying that we as a community shouldnt try to address these issues-but we need to get our facts straight first
-
Thank you Average Joe, I consider myself reasonably intelligent also. I am very welll aware that our city operates under civil service laws, hiring and practices. Depending upon the job and situation, it is possible to be hired by the city prior to taking an exam. This is called a provisional hiring. Once the exam is called, then the individual is required to take the exam. Preference can be given to city residents. Also, there are jobs that do not necessarily require the taking of the test but on the job experience and education.
With regard to the civilian complaint review board, maybe you should do your homework. It is legal in New Jersey. In fact, you do not have to look far for a municipality having such a board. Teaneck has a civillian complaint review board.
I found your response condescending but I will chalk it up to our differences of opinion but our mutual love of Hackensack with and without its flaws.
-
Related stories:
Teaneck's watchdog panel at crossroads (http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkzJmZnYmVsN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2NjQ1Mzkx)
Community seeks to improve dialogue with police (http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2OTEmZmdiZWw3Zjd2cWVlRUV5eTY3MDUwOTkmeXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk5) (Hackensack)
-
"itsme"hope you checked out editors post of record article regarding Teanecks "police review board'- notice the part of the story that said a problem with it is that board has no subpoena power?
so you want a board that has no power?
problems or perceptions of problems are not gonna be resolved by pr stunts-which it appears was teanecks motivation
but that their problem not ours
-
Actually Joe, it's up to each municipality to give the police review board the power to subpoena when creating it. It appears that Teaneck went down that path. If the HPD doesn't have anything to hide, it shouldn't be a problem for the city council to give the review board such powers. It can only help build a better bond between the community of Hackensack and the HPD.
Even though Teaneck review board didn't have the power to subpoena people, it did serve its purpose with creating aveunes to check police conduct in dealing the community. As you fail to mention, with or without subpoena power, the board has seen fewer complaints. It probably has more to do with TPD not wanting any negative publicity. Any time there is someone to watch you, one is more likely to straighten up and fly right. It all about checks and balances to make sure everything fair for all.
-
The following appeared in the July 13, 2005 edition of the Record:
The Concerned Citizens Organization of Hackensack strongly supports many of the suggestions set forth in "Hackensack's chance" (Editorial, July 3). Most particularly, we support the editorial's suggestion that this is the "opportunity for the city government to ease the distrust and alienation many minority residents feel toward law enforcement and City Hall."
Just recently, the state attorney general mandated that all police officers must go through a three-hour training course on racial profiling. They must also pass a test to show that they have learned this lesson. Police Chief Charles "Ken" Zisa must make sure this program is enforced, particularly at a time when the city is dealing with complaints about the behavior of its own police officers.
Institution of a civil complaint review board made up of both citizens and law enforcement officers would address these issues in a suitable manner.
We must make Hackensack citizens aware that such issues exist and are not to be swept under the rug. Chief Zisa has expressed his desire to resolve these issues. We now look to the newly elected mayor and council to address them as well.
Larry Riley and Blanche M. Stuart
Hackensack, July 6
The writers are president and secretary, respectively, of the Concerned Citizens Organization.
-
sayhey-my point is this-im not sure that a town can just create a board and"poof" give it the power to issue subpoenas-im not a lawyer-thats why i suggested to"itsme" that he/she ask the city attorney
without the power to make someone come forward to testify before a board-what gets created,in my opinion,sounds good on paper but accomplishes nothing
-
It is within the power of the city council/mayor/city manager to create policies for the welfare of the city as long as it doesn't interfere or overstep county, state or federal laws.
One thing I do wish for is the mayor and the city council become full time employees of the city and not part-time. A city of Hackensack size and importance to the region need full time attention.
-
KYGaxs ehrolfoqlzpp (http://ehrolfoqlzpp.com/), tmlnheophsrm (http://tmlnheophsrm.com/), [link=http://fvapdtlqiite.com/]fvapdtlqiite[/link], http://nindvnmbzlqq.com/
-
I agree Eric. My suggestion is not a vendetta against the police. It is basically a checks and balance system. The marjority of law enforcement officers in Hackensack do their job in a professional manner and should be commended. Many in the minority and immigrant population of Hackensack are afraid to file a complaint against an officer for fear of retaliation or the belief that nothing will be done about it. In a meeting with the police chief held a Carver Park, 30 or so individuals addressed the chief concerning numerous incidences involving one particular officer. Some of these individuals stated that they went to the station to file a complaint and were told (not so nicely) that they could not. The institution of a complaint review board would allow those individuals to make the complaint. After reviewing the data, the board would then rule on the validity of the complaint, dismiss it if not substantiated and if substantiated give recommendations to the police chief who would have the final decision as to what remedies are to be made. The issue here is accountability.
-
I have not previously voiced my views on the topic of a civilian review board. I was simply interested in what was being said. It is now painfully obvious that those that are requesting this review board are probably doing so just to cause more controversy where none exists. Chief Zisa met with the citizens in Carver Park, just as requested. He listened to all the complaints, just as requested.
We have one of the most professional and most respected police forces in the state. The men and women that serve do so professionally. I am proud to be protected by them.
-
I am not sure if you were in attendance at Carver Park. I was. While the police chief did answer many of the questions, there were some that were not answered. Chief Zisa is aware of those questions and hopefully he will follow up with the organizers of that meeting to address those issues. I was one of those in attendance and agree that the Hackensack Police Department is one of the most professional departments around. However, there are a few bad apples that may spoil the whole bunch (at least peceptually). These individuals need to be brought into line. There is no overt attempt to create controversy. Our hope is to prevent any. To say that those who are requesting this review board are simply looking to create controversy where none exists, is certainly unfounded. Come out to the park and take your own survey. There is a problem. However, it is not a problem that cannot be corrected.
-
The post that appeared here was split to a new topic: Karma Rating (http://www.hackensacknow.org/forums/index.php/topic,529.0.html)
-
This is an interesting topic which I have followed on this site and in the Bergen Rag. For those who have paid attention, it's clear that Devil has it figured out. This issue is being created by a handful of political activists who were on the losing side of the council election. From what I heard and read, most of the 30 attendees in Carver Park were candidates or supporters of the council losers. I understand that thousands of flyers were distributed in Hackensack and Teaneck and only 30 people showed up, mostly politicians! Could it be that most residents actually like the job that the police department is doing? Is it possible that all the community policing programs run by HPD have really built relationships with local residents, including minority residents? I can't think of one city as diverse as ours which works and lives together so harmoniously and so productively. And hats off to our new city council who is leading the way in celebrating our diversity with their plan to share mayoral responsibilities during their term. Did anyone else notice that the only ones critical of their plan were the council losers and their supporters? Read my lips, losers: NO MATTER HOW HARD YOU TRY TO DIVIDE OUR COMMUNITY WITH DISTORTIONS AND OUTRIGHT LIES, HACKENSACK RESIDENTS LIKE EACH OTHER! THEY JUST DON'T LIKE YOU! THAT'S WHY YOU WERE REJECTED BY THE VOTERS! (OVERWHELMINGLY!)
-
Let's talk the truth. The meeting at the park was for members of that neighborhood. The majority of the individuals who attended were not even registered voters. Their opinion was that their views are not addressed and even if they were voters nothing could come of it. The flyers were distributed only in that neighborhood. As for supporting the losers of the past campagin. Some did some did not. The issue is beyond something political. To simplify it to that is ridiculous. In fact, a wife of one of the persons running for election against the present administration was asked to leave the meeting for that reason.
Let's talk about the facts not something you think happened at that meeting. Clearly, if this was a political agenda, this issue would have stopped after the election. If the opponents of the current administration had won, they would have to address the same issues. In fact, I invite them to address the issue now.
Again, I invite the losers, the winners and any residents to come out to the park and take your own survey. This is not only an issue addressed here on the pages of this forum. It is a topic that has been brought across the pulpits of the black churches by its ministers.
The new mayor and council does represent the entire community. No one is challenging that. I myself wish them well and intend to continue to do my part in volunterism. While I do not belong to HAPADA or any of the appointed counsels, there are some organizers of groups supporting this civilian review board who do belong to those various boards. I work with various fraternal, social and non-profit organizations who promote the well-being of children and adults in this town and will continue to do that no matter who is in office. Those organizations have instituted and/or sponsored recreational teams, scholarships, employment seminars, drug awareness and prevention groups among other things.
-
Hamburgler hit it on the head. The losers are the ones complaining. The residents are happy with the way things are. Look at the vote. The losers just can' accept the notion that they lost. Excuse me, THEY GOT CRUSHED.
They can't complain about nepotism anymore unless Joe Zisa is related to Mayor Townes. Perhaps someone should ask the mayor in case there is something we do not know.
Therefore they might as well complain about the police. The drug dealers must love that.
-
Although my last post was not directed to anyone in particular, only to the topic, I want to answer itsme. I commend you on your commitment to our city. It is volunteers like you that are the strength of our city and make it the great community that it is. I assume that your attendance at the Carver Park meeting was for the right reasons. But it seems that you're unaware of what really happened that night. According to the newspaper report, the only reason that 2 of the politicians left was because the police chief requested it. Look on this homepage under News Articles. "Chief's demand prompted 2 to leave meeting" May 19, 2005. The so-called "Concerned Citizens" condemned that request as a "misuse of power". Deborah Keeling-Geddis claimed that residents have not been allowed to file complaints but the article offered no specifics. Keeling-Geddis is a former losing candidate who supported this year's losers and is apparently a spokesperson for these "Concerned Citizens". Clearly, the group is political in nature and simply cannot accept the fact that they were rejected so convincingly by Hackensack voters. I say to you itsme, thank you for what you do for our community and keep on doing it. I say to the "Concerned Citizens", shame on you for trying to divide our community with your baseless attacks on our Finest and accept your electoral thrashing graciously. In every election, there are winners and losers. And in every election, you happen to be the LOSERS.
-
Related prior story: Chief's demand prompted 2 to leave meeting (http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkzJmZnYmVsN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2Njk1Nzk0)
-
I am a member of the Concerned Citizens Organization. Deborah Keeling-Geddis came to about 2 meetings but none in the last 4 months. The group has only been in existence for approximately 5 months. She is certainly not a spokesperson for the group.
You are right, the police chief did request that one individual leave. The other left because she felt the request was unfair and that the meeting should not continue. Despite that, it was decided by the President and members of the group that this was an important issue that concerned the neighborhood and was not a political issue and since the police chief had agreed to meet with us, and we had his attention and attendance, it should go on despite those two individuals who felt it should not. The meeting was conducted in a fair and impartial manner and when it became unruly, those individuals were advised that this was a meeting to discuss concerns and not one in which disrespectful comments would be allowed. I am involved because I believe that these issues should be addressed in a manner that is beneficial to all. I am involved not to cause a divide in this community. I also believe that the community policing programs have relieved some of these issues and that those programs should continue. I am involved because I believe that the civilian complaint review board would help to relieve the distrust that many in that neighborhood have for some police officers. I believe that all drug dealers and offenders of the law should be dealt with in accordance with the law and that those who do not involve themselves in unlawful activities should be treated with respect. I stand by my statement that I have no political agenda and the group has no political agenda. I cannot persuade those who believe otherwise and feel that I do not have to persuade them. Maybe your staunch attitude and accusations indicate that you have a political agenda. Again, I invite you to visit Carver Park and speak to the people then tell me what you think and not what you heard. However, I do find it strange that you can quote the Record when most of your comments indicate that the Record does not deal fairly and accurately with Hackensack.
-
itsme, you spend a lot of time insisting that your motives are honorable. You don't need to. It is obvious from your comments that you care about Hackensack and want to help make it a better place for all of us. However, we do disagree about the motives of the group and its organizers. According to the May 19th article, participants said the meeting was productive. It would seem logical to build on that meeting with continued dialogue. Instead, according to a June 8, 2005 column by Lawrence Aaron, "Community seeks to improve dialogue with police", the leaders of your group held another meeting to discuss "Hackensack horror stories". The press was invited, but according to Mr. Aaron, the police chief was not. Maybe the headline should have been "Community seeks to improve dialogue with the press." We also disagree about Deborah Keeling-Geddis. You said that she hadn't attended a meeting in 4 months, yet according to the article, the Carver Park meeting was only 2 months ago. And whether or not she has been designated as any type of official spokesperson, she is recognized by the press as speaking on behalf of the group. I also want to say that although you usually present your thoughts in a very objective manner, I think you were out of line with your comment about my attitude and supposed political agenda. It is that kind of personal attack that probably got you in trouble with your Karma points in the past.
-
Related prior story: Community seeks to improve dialogue with police (http://www.bergen.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk5JmZnYmVsN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2NzA1MDk5)
-
running the risk of being accused of being"condescending" i think the discussion regarding a police review board and police relationships with the minority communities in this forum has been extremely insightful by most paricipants-
there are however some troubling points
1 did anybody ask the city atty ,or any other atty if such a board is legal?broad statements such as the" council can do anything in the interest of the city not contrary to the law" do not address the problem as highlighted by the article the editor posted about Teanecks lack of success-do you really think that Teaneck collectively is so "dumb" as to not provide their board with subpoena power if they legally could have?
i am not convinced that this is legal-cos if it isnt we re really chasing our own tails-however well meaning
2 to suggest that there is not a SIGNIFICANT element of local politics by the same old group of malcontents which has infiltrated this "movement" is to ignore the obvious-those who pay attention ,know better.
which is a shame,really, because legitimate areas of inquiry and discussion get coopted and tainted
but like dennis miller says "hey, i could be wrong"
-
I believe that itsme does have the best interest of hackensack at heart. I do, however, question the motives of others like the Dunns. If I am not mistaken Mrs dunn was the one that was asked to leave. Her being there right before an election clearly was political. I can't picture her being a regular at Carver park.
The Chief is obviously trying to address any complaints as they come up. The rank and file in the police department must know that the Chief is giving this issue his full attention.
Give him a chance to take care of this as the leading law inforcement officer in our town.
I believe that this issue is being brought up by people like Larry Riley and the Dunns because they see a possible election in the future and want to get the community riled up (no pun intended).
Perhaps more attention should be given to [someone who allegedly] tried to run a police officer down. Police brutality in reverse. [Click here for Record article (http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkzJmZnYmVsN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2NTE4OTk1)]. [Sentence modified by Editor.]
-
Touche' Hamburglar. You got me on that one. Personal attacks are not warranted and I hope my overzealousness can be forgiven.
The Carver Park meeting took place on May 17, 2005 a week after the municipal election but was scheduled for that date prior to the election. The June forum was a forum similar to the one held in Englewood. That forum was in the planning before the Englewood forum but individuals involved in both helped to get the Englewood Forum off earlier. In any event, the forum was for parents and young people. It's purpose was to make our youth aware of their personal responsibility. While the meeting did veer off of that subject, one police officer from Teaneck, born and raised in Hackensack, did stress that point. I attended the meeting with my young son. Discussion involved how things can get escalated simply by the way you respond to a police stop. Do not be confrontational. Yelling and screaming serves no purpose other than to blow the situation out of proportion. Stay away from those who you know are troublemakers. If you feel that you have been treated unfairly by a police officer, take note of his name, badge# or license number and then file a complaint. This forum was scheduled not to point a finger at the police but to make sure our youth know what their responsibility is when a police officer approaches them. This issue is a two way street. As any parent knows, our children are not always right (eventhough we would like to believe so). Likewise, a few of our police officers are not always right in their actions. Checks and balances.
I disagree with Devil's opinion of Larry Riley. The Dunns do not belong to this organization.
As for Average Joe, your points are well taken even if I don't agree with most of them.
-
mD1qpx zzbibdgeqcgu (http://zzbibdgeqcgu.com/), eabskisfulms (http://eabskisfulms.com/), [link=http://wzyzxfxzrgij.com/]wzyzxfxzrgij[/link], http://eslahtbodvyt.com/
-
WOW the only thing i can think of is a bad meds day!!! this is the most TOXIC post ever....where is the reasoning behind your post....in other words if i called for a town meeting to strap you to a spaceship and propel you into outer space....my concerns should be taken seriously by the powers that be.....[Personal attack deleted by Editor]
-
Are the personal attacks necessary???
You guys (or girls) are taking this discussion to a new low.
First of all, the election is OVER!!! Secondly, it's irrelevant who was at the Carver Park meeting or who Joan Dunn is. It should be obvious that there seems to be a problem with some police officers and the black community. Let's fix that. If it means a Review Board, let's do it. If it means more meetings, let's do it. Whatever it takes, let's get this done.
-
Knock it off with the personal attacks.
I don't have strong feelings about this topic one way or another, but how could we ever have a Civilian Complaint Review Board if people can't be civil?
-
editor here is my problem with your deletions-i read eric martindales post both pre and post your handiwork-what you deleted as a personal attack on Dunn,female-was info that i think is fair game-excuse me but as treasurer of all the campaigns attacking our school system-she has thrust herself into the role of a public figure...shes fair game-and before people listen to her opinions they ought to know all about her and her nihilistic beliefs-thats what the first amendment is about ,isnt it?
now as to erics thoughts on a civilian review board...downside eric? try this-cops are responsible for their actions under the law-if they break it -they can be prosecuted-convicted-sent to jail
please tell me what you think a panel of "citizens" is going to accomplish?
i have been posing this question to all engaged in this discussion-is such a board legal?
noone responded so i called a lawyer friend i know and asked her to take a look for me-she says there was a case in new jersey about an attempt to create such a board in newark some years ago-the court ruled that the municipality COULD NOT GIVE THE PROPOSED BOARD THE POWER OF SUBPOENA-and therefore the ordinance was no good-
complaints about our police dept? here are some places to go
1 chief of police
2city manager
3city council
4bergen co prosecutor
5atty general of nj
6 us atty
this public service announcement was brought to you courtesy of average joe
-
Average Joe:
I respect your criticism, but let's be clear about something: I do not guarantee anyone's 1st Amendment rights on these boards. That's especially true for anonymous posters who lash out at people who may or may not view these boards and have an opportunity to defend themselves. Anyone looking to fully exercise their right to free speech can get on soap box on Main Street.
What’s more, while the author of the offending post may know something to be true, I may not. As such, I’m in the unfortunate position of constantly trying to discern what’s true from what isn’t. Opinions, stated as such, are a different matter. That's not to say that I won't consider some opinions as attacks, but posters often state opinion as fact. If a poster wants to link to another news source that supports the allegations, he or she may do so.
Secondly, while I agree that the targeted individuals are public figures, I don’t like being put in the position of having to defend a lawsuit to confirm I’m right.
I intended these boards to be forum for meaningful, robust discussion and not as a platform for insult or innuendo. As for the deletions, "I call ‘em as I see ‘em." That goes for both sides of the aisle.
If you’re looking for boards were you might be granted "wider latitude" for comment, might I suggest the Dunn’s forum here: http://www.nj.com/forums/hackensack. In the alternative, visitors are free to start their own message boards and assume responsibility for the sites’ content.
-
I find it interesting that a substantive discussion deteriorated so quickly when Eric joined in. Maybe it's because instead of sticking to the facts as we perceived them as each of us did, he injected his usual skewed political rhetoric and now I need to correct misrepresentations in every one of his paragraphs.
Neither Devil nor I ever said that this issue shouldn't be addressed because the group raising it lost the election. We believe that the issue is being CREATED for political reasons and does not exist as it's being represented.
I think Irish Eyes summed up how ridiculous the concept of addressing every single person's individual wish is. Since I doubt that our part-time City Council has the time to address 42,677 wishes during their term, I assume that they will focus on the issues that they believe are most important to our community at large. Living in a democracy means that we will have an opportunity to pass judgement on their efforts at the polls 4 years from now. It does NOT mean that council genies grant all of our wishes.
Nothing I have read in the paper or on this forum indicated that the Carver Park meeting was a public meeting. It was held by a private group to address concerns of minority residents living in the central part of town. That's the way it was billed by the organizers and reiterated on this site by itsme. Although I have never personally met Joan Dunn, I don't think she fits the description of the target audience. If that was a really a public meeting, would the Rag have stood still when they were excluded?
Finally, Eric concludes that a Civilian Review Board is necessary because "major segments of the community have bad relations with the police, and they go around accusing the Chief of Police of attempting to run the city like a modern-day Julius Caesar". Where'd all that stuff come from? I think it's more like a couple of dozen people got together to discuss some general concerns about a few police officers and the Chief and those residents are trying to work it all out. Eric should stick to the facts and not project his feelings about the police onto an entire community.
-
I deleted a post that appeared here for a few reasons:
1. It was a full article from The Record. I do not have permission to use the Record's articles. That is why I link to their site. Their articles are not stored on my server and visitors need to register with the Record to view articles. The article was about charges brought against a message board member for animal cruelty years ago.
2. The article was not germane to the discussion of a CCRB and added nothing to the discussion. It was obviously meant as an attack on a member.
3. "irisheyes" posted the article and did so anonymously.
I meant what I said in my prior post. If visitors are not comfortable with the terms of use, I would ask that they do not post messages.
-
zL4TIT suuodxmalhel (http://suuodxmalhel.com/), dzyyjcjhlizp (http://dzyyjcjhlizp.com/), [link=http://hyyjgiqabilf.com/]hyyjgiqabilf[/link], http://kagdzmvekneb.com/
-
Why does Eric keep speaking for Devil and me? He has enough trouble logically organizing his own thoughts. Why would I care if residents attend council meetings to express their concerns? That IS appropriate for them to do. And I'm sure that the police appreciate him speaking for them too in explaining how beneficial a civilian review board is for them. I guess that's why police all over the country are demanding that civilian review boards be established in their towns.
-
As you may or may not recall, I initiated this conversation after a meeting at Carver Park regarding unfair treatment of some minority members of this community by some officers of this community. At that meeting at Carver Park, the Police Chief gave out his business card and asked that anyone who had a problem feel free to contact him directly. This statement was made in response to individuals who indicated that they were not allowed to file a complaint against a police officer after a confrontation between the police and themselves. Sometime after that, I was asked by an individual to go with her to file a complaint. The complaint involved her minor daughter who was handcuffed to a pole and claimed to be unfairly treated by a police officer. It was my understanding that the complaint would be taken and the proper authorities would address it. Upon arrival at the police department, we were told that a complaint could not be filed because we needed to wait for a particular officer was not present. I and the individual questioned the desk sargeant as to why the complaint could not be registered at that time, while it was fresh in her mind and was told (not so nicely) that was the procedure. We requested to speak with the police chief and was told he was not available. I am sure that his unavailability was true and not just stated to blow us off. When asked if I could leave a message for the Chief to return our call, the desk sargeant refused to take the message (again not so nicely). We left the station not wanting to have a disorderly confrontation. Remembering that I had the card that Chief Zisa handed out, I called his office and left a message. At that time, I was involved in volunteer work at a church on Central Avenue and mentioned the situation to a former president of the Bergen County NAACP who was at the church. He then contacted the police chief and was immediately put through to him. After discussing the situation with the Police Chief, the chief advised him to have us come back to the police station to file the complaint. We went back to the police station and again was told (not so nicely) that the complaint could not be made. We told him about the conversation with the Police Chief and then only after that was the complaint allowed to be filed. The individual filing the complaint had requested that I go with her to make the statement because she would feel more comfortable if I was there. I was told very nastily by the desk sargeant that she could go make the complaint but I would not be allowed to be present. Not wanting to further complicate the situation, I told her to go make the complaint.
In the past couple of months, I have read articles regarding the complaints and disciplinary charges going on in the police department. I have read the civil complaint which was on the internet. Some of the same complaints made by those officers against superior officers are similar to the complaints of some members of the minority community. I am not sure who is right or wrong. I can only await the outcome of all of these lawsuits and internal affairs hearings. If the allegations against the Police Chief and other superior officers are found to be true, it will make me wonder if the police chief took the concerns of the citizens seriously having operated his force and internal affairs complaints in such a manner.