HILLSDALE—A unanimous council has voted to override Mayor John Ruocco’s partial veto of an ordinance that provides the police department “flexibility” to hire when circumstances such as retirements and resignations might leave the department without proper personnel in place.
After a brief discussion at the Oct. 25 meeting of the governing body — where Ruocco questioned the process being used to possibly replenish the number of police department officers via an ordinance the council approved Oct. 11 — members voted to override the mayor’s veto.
Ruocco took pains to explain that his partial veto “assumed nothing about the level of police needed now or in the future.” He said his partial veto was “more concerned with process” and “a poor policy choice on the council’s part.”
Nearly 30 online participants joined the 2 p.m. special meeting, where council also approved $290,000 bonding to repave three local streets. An approval was needed so that grant funds could be expended for the street improvements.
At one point during the override discussion, over ordinance 22-16, Police Chief Robert Francaviglia said he was a “little disappointed” about the mayor’s “lack of trust” and characterized his partial veto as “absurd.”
In his partial veto of the ordinance, which revises the Police Department table of organization from 20 to 23 officers, including one chief of police, one captain, one lieutenant, six sergeants, and 14 patrol officers, Ruocco said he did not question the police department’s staffing.
“I wish to make clear as permitted to me by law that my objection applies only to that portion of the ordinance which increases the maximum number of officers from 20 to 23 by virtue of an increase in sergeants from five to six, and an increase in patrol officers from 12 to 14. I approve all other portions of the ordinance,” said the mayor’s partial veto, which he issued on Oct. 21.
Ruocco wrote, “The reasons set forth in favor of adopting said ordinance were based on providing flexibility and speed for the department to respond to resignations or retirements in the future. No hypothetical or anticipated instances were advanced to necessitate an increase. At the sergeant level, the department is operating with only four and thus is already authorized to add an additional sergeant.”
He explained, “It was said that the past practice of relying on an ordinance to change the Hillsdale legal code to accommodate future increases in staff would be too time-consuming and unwieldy. I find that argument unconvincing since the minimum number of days from ordinance introduction to ordinance adoption need only be 10 days and the usual 20-day wait period after adoption can be overridden and circumvented by council.”
The mayor cannot vote on ordinances, except in case of a tie, and can only veto or partly veto an ordinance by sending back the ordinance unsigned to the borough clerk within 10 days of council approval.
After explaining his veto, Ruocco asked councilman and police liaison John Escobar why his alternative approach — to allow the department to exceed hiring limits for a period up to six months to accommodate retirements or resignations — was not possible.
Escobar replied that he was following the advice of the business administrator and police chief. He said of that advice, reflected in the ordinance, “And I think it’s a good idea.”
After councilman Zoltán Horváth — a frequent Ruocco ally, as votes go — moved to table the override motion to do more research, and his motion failed to receive a second, administrator David Troast alleged the mayor was offering his alternative at the 11th hour.
Ruocco disputed that, saying he offered the alternative during either ordinance introduction or the public hearing.
Troast said with the ordinance the number of active officers remains the same.
Francaviglia also said he was following the counsel of the borough labor attorney in supporting the ordinance.
Councilwoman Abby Lundy wondered aloud whether Ruocco believed the ordinance was “automatically increasing the size of the force.”
Ruocco said he did not think that but questioned the process being established by the ordinance.
The mayor, who often clashes with the council majority, told Pascack Press via email, “The issue before the council on Oct. 11 and now again this (Oct. 25) is one of proper policy, about recognizing the importance of police staffing decisions that have a tremendous financial impact on the borough and treating it with the attention that it deserves in a public hearing. This was recognized and respected by past councils. But this council has decided to change the law to allow in one sweep future increases in the size of the department in the name of flexibility subject only to a simple resolution process that reduces the opportunity for public input and permits hasty decision-making on weighty matters.”
He added, “It is not good government because it eliminates a policy control. It continues a pattern of behavior and decision-making on the part of this Council that I have tried to point out and change, but to no avail.”
And he said, “The matter of the proper size of the department is not being challenged or debated. That is a question for the future, when and if the chief recommends an increase in size to the council’s Police Committee, and ultimately to the full governing body. He has already said that he does not anticipate the Department being above 20 for the foreseeable future.”
Ruocco emphasized, “My objection to the council’s adoption of Ordinance 22-16 is that it radically changes the past practice of making those types of decisions, and eliminates the good aspects of having a cap specified in the law (e.g., a public hearing with a reasonable amount of time allocated for the council to make its decision) without adding any benefits.”
He added, “So why do it? For flexibility? That can be addressed in other ways, and I suggested one of them.”