News (Media Awareness Project) - US NJ: Troopers And Brass Clash Over Letters |
Title: | US NJ: Troopers And Brass Clash Over Letters |
Published On: | 1999-08-28 |
Source: | Star-Ledger (NJ) |
Fetched On: | 2008-09-05 21:50:00 |
TROOPERS AND BRASS CLASH OVER LETTERS
Troopers preparing to testify at a hearing about discrimination in the
State Police said yesterday that supervisors were trying to intimidate
them into silence by sending them threatening letters.
The State Police called the letters a "common-sense courtesy" in
response to the troopers' requests to speak publicly.
The Latino and Black Legislative Caucus is planning the hearing Monday
morning in Trenton. Some 19 troopers and one civilian are expected to
speak on a wide range of allegations including racial profiling,
promotional bias and discriminatory behavior.
Several of the troopers who will testify recently took the State
Police to court to gain the right to speak to the public. Last month a
Superior Court judge threw out the old rules, which banned troopers
from discussing virtually anything they learned on the job. In
response, the agency issued new guidelines last week requiring
troopers to give 48 hours' notice before making any public comments.
They also are not allowed to talk about confidential matters.
An attorney for the troopers says there are problems with the new
regulations, and has asked the judge for a new hearing.
The State Police said the letters, delivered by hand over the past few
days, were sent to remind troopers of the regulations, not to try to
intimidate them. The letters included a copy of the new rules, known
as Regulation 19, and pointed out that troopers who divulge
confidential information may be disciplined.
''It's unfortunate that these troopers are looking to say that this is
some sort of retribution when indeed the State Police is bending over
backward to provide them with written affirmation to their written
request," said John Hagerty, a State Police spokesman. "It's
unfathomable they would take it any other way than a courtesy response."
Troopers said the letters were delivered by internal affairs officers
in the middle of crowded police barracks. Trooper Greg Sanders said he
got his Thursday.
''When everyone's standing around in a station and an internal affairs
sergeant walks in and hands you an envelope, everyone's like, 'Let me
get away from them.' This is done to have a chilling effect on our
ability to speak on Monday," he said.
''It's just not State Police protocol. I don't know of any other
occasion where they've utilized an internal affairs officer to deliver
a nonconfidential letter," he said.
Sanders said the troopers will still testify Monday, although they
will be more careful about what they say.
Assemblyman LeRoy Jones (D- Essex), a member of the caucus, said the
letters proved once again that State Police officials are afraid to
let troopers speak the truth about problems on the force.
''I think it's a thinly veiled threat, which I think is horrible," he
said. "That is indicative of the culture we're trying to eradicate. A
culture that is proven to be discriminatory, but now is threatening to
troopers who are participating in a governmental process."
Troopers preparing to testify at a hearing about discrimination in the
State Police said yesterday that supervisors were trying to intimidate
them into silence by sending them threatening letters.
The State Police called the letters a "common-sense courtesy" in
response to the troopers' requests to speak publicly.
The Latino and Black Legislative Caucus is planning the hearing Monday
morning in Trenton. Some 19 troopers and one civilian are expected to
speak on a wide range of allegations including racial profiling,
promotional bias and discriminatory behavior.
Several of the troopers who will testify recently took the State
Police to court to gain the right to speak to the public. Last month a
Superior Court judge threw out the old rules, which banned troopers
from discussing virtually anything they learned on the job. In
response, the agency issued new guidelines last week requiring
troopers to give 48 hours' notice before making any public comments.
They also are not allowed to talk about confidential matters.
An attorney for the troopers says there are problems with the new
regulations, and has asked the judge for a new hearing.
The State Police said the letters, delivered by hand over the past few
days, were sent to remind troopers of the regulations, not to try to
intimidate them. The letters included a copy of the new rules, known
as Regulation 19, and pointed out that troopers who divulge
confidential information may be disciplined.
''It's unfortunate that these troopers are looking to say that this is
some sort of retribution when indeed the State Police is bending over
backward to provide them with written affirmation to their written
request," said John Hagerty, a State Police spokesman. "It's
unfathomable they would take it any other way than a courtesy response."
Troopers said the letters were delivered by internal affairs officers
in the middle of crowded police barracks. Trooper Greg Sanders said he
got his Thursday.
''When everyone's standing around in a station and an internal affairs
sergeant walks in and hands you an envelope, everyone's like, 'Let me
get away from them.' This is done to have a chilling effect on our
ability to speak on Monday," he said.
''It's just not State Police protocol. I don't know of any other
occasion where they've utilized an internal affairs officer to deliver
a nonconfidential letter," he said.
Sanders said the troopers will still testify Monday, although they
will be more careful about what they say.
Assemblyman LeRoy Jones (D- Essex), a member of the caucus, said the
letters proved once again that State Police officials are afraid to
let troopers speak the truth about problems on the force.
''I think it's a thinly veiled threat, which I think is horrible," he
said. "That is indicative of the culture we're trying to eradicate. A
culture that is proven to be discriminatory, but now is threatening to
troopers who are participating in a governmental process."
Member Comments |
No member comments available...