Archive

What Part of Permanent Do They Not Understand?

There’s a whole lot of bullshit in this morning’s Trentonian, coming out of the mouths of both Trenton’s Mayor “ZT” (for “Zero Tolerance”) Jackson, and “Acting” Police Director Ernest Parrey, Jr.

In separate articles in this morning’s Trentonian, both men continue to defend the actions of Director Parrey in hiring Angel Perez to work in a civilian capacity for the Trenton Police Department. Perez, son-in-law of Mayor ZT’s Chief of Staff Francis Blanco, was hired after being removed from the Mercer County Police Academy for cheating. It is his familial relationship to Ms. Blanco that has raised questions about special treatment being given Mr. Perez that would not be provided other police cadets in similar situations.

For his part, Mr. Parrey continues to claim there’s nothing to see here, please move along. In an article by Penny Ray for the Trentonian, the Acting Director makes a very weak case for his actions. Referring to Rule 3-6 of the Mercer Academy’s Rules and Regulations, which calls for “immediate, permanent removal” of a recruit for any incidence of cheating or attempt to cheat, “Parrey said the rules and regulations pertain only to the police academy and not to the police department. Therefore, Parrey said, his decision to allow Perez to work in the records section and recycle through the next police academy class is within the confines of the regulations.”

The Director believes Mr. Perez has been punished enough. “’He lost 15 weeks of the police academy, he was seven weeks away from his graduation date, and now he has to go to the back of the class,’ Parrey said. ‘That’s punishment. Should he be punished more severely than another recruit?’”

Director Parrey entirely misses the point. Should Mr. Perez be “punished more severely than another recruit”? Of course not.

But Rule 3-6 is very explicit that cheating is not tolerated, and “shall be grounds for immediate, permanent removal of the trainee from from the Academy.” Mr. Perez was removed immediately, but Parrey seems to think he does not deserve permanent exclusion.

Why? What part of “permanent” does Mr. Parrey not understand? Why should Mr. Perez be punished less severely than another recruit in the same position?

I have written to officials at both the Mercer Police Academy and to the Mercer County Prosecutor’s Office, asking them to confirm or deny Parrey’s contention that others have received the same treatment as Mr. Perez is being offered. Namely, how many other cadets expelled for cheating of other Class “A” (i.e. those offenses incurring enough demerits to require expulsion) violations have been allowed to re-enroll in later classes? I have also filed an Open Public Records Act request with Mercer County to get statistics on these occasions. I don’t want or need any personal details from anyone else. I just think we need to know if Mr. Parrey is correct, if cheaters are routinely re-cycled through the Mercer County Police Academy in violation of explicit rules to the contrary, and hired as active police officers in Trenton, Mercer County or elsewhere in New Jersey.

In today’s Trentonian article by David Foster, Mayor ZT also denies any preferential treatment was given Perez. “I want to make sure we don’t do preferential treatment… I sit here before you or any resident and say I’m confident that is not why the recommendation was made. I know within myself we would have done it with any of the other 20-something young adults in that class.

The Mayor did not reference the Academy rules as Mr. Parrey did when talking to Penny Ray. But it’s possible that Mr. ZT was not aware of the rules under which the police trainees serve. Perhaps this is some more “stuff” the Mayor is talking about when he told Mr. Foster ““I don’t know that stuff and they don’t tell me that stuff.”

So, Mr. Mayor, knowing now about the Academy rules, can you say that offering a chance to “recycle” through the Academy after being cashiered for cheating is really something you would do for “any of the other 20-something young adults in that class”?

What part of “permanent” do YOU not understand?

Mayor ZT’s strong belief in offering people a second chance is admirable. In many, many circumstances and situations, offering someone a second chance after they’ve made a mistake is a mark of grace, and of charity. We are all of us sinners, and it’s good to know redemption is possible.

And yet, on the specific occasion we are talking about here, a police trainee was caught in an act of cheating. With some details of the actual cheating being revealed to us today, there is no one saying that Angel Perez did not cheat. In his position as a police recruit, it was 100% crystal-clear to him, and his instructors, and his classmates, what the consequences of such an act of cheating would be. “Immediate, permanent removal.”

This morning, both Mr. Perez and Mayor ZT continue to pretend that this explicit, unambiguous provision for punishment either does not exist, or does not matter.

What does that say to the other cadets of that class, who graduated last week with honor, without cheating? What will they think, in a year or two or more, when Mr. Perez is assigned to duty alongside them?

What does this say to other, non-familially connected, employees of the City of Trenton? If you have connections, they have your back – whatever you do?

What does this say to the citizens of Trenton, many of whom voted for Mr. Jackson because he promised, he pledged, he vowed [Emphasis mine -KM],

The mayor must make it clear to every employee working for the city and its independent agencies that there is zero tolerance for corruption, personal enrichment or dishonesty.

That politicians will say anything, make any promise, offer any commitment to get elected, only to feel free to ignore all that once safely in office?

Because that’s sure what this sounds like. And that’s why it’s nothing but bullshit.

6 comments to What Part of Permanent Do They Not Understand?

  • Bob

    All your points are valid, but with a big misconception.

    The Academy rules only pertain to THAT academy. By academy rule, he won’t be allowed back. There are several other academies in the state. If another academy in the state accepts him, then he can attend.

    I would imagine all the rules for the states academies are similar (if not identifical!). Is there anything in Mercer’s rules about excluding a recruit who has cheated in another academy? If not, then one of the other county academies would probably have to accept him. So he would have to drive much further and could probably start a new academy sooner then if he had to wait for Mercer.

    In the past others have “recycled” but I don’t think any have for disciplinary reasons. It was always due to injury/illness.

  • Kevin

    Bob, I don’t see anything specific about not being eligible to be admitted to one academy if kicked out of another. However, I do expect that kind of information to be easily revealed in the course of the background check that each recruit undergoes. And, once revealed, I can’t believe that kind of disclosure would not cause a problem.

    I also do not see any explicit rule that would lead to dismissal of a cadet one day before graduation due to associating with gang members. But that happened. I hear that there are some additional factors that may be relevant in this particular case, but they too may not be specifically prohibited.

    But for both instances, there is a rule 1-1, helpfully called the “Omnibus Rule,” that states “… Any conduct, committed or
    omitted, not specifically listed in these Rules and Regulations that undermine, or have a tendency to undermine the standards, goals, objectives, good order and discipline of the Police Academy, will be considered a violation of this Rule(1.1). A Class ‘B’ Offense *.”

    I feel pretty confident that a prior expulsion for cheating from another academy would be reasonably considered conduct that would tend to undermine the goals, objectives, good order and discipline of the Academy. As would some kinds of associations with known gang members.

    The Rules and Regs are not all-inclusive. Such a document could easily be ten times the size of this one. I’m sure that’s a main reason that Omnibus Rule exists.

    But that is certainly no reason that a rule that is as explicit and unambiguous as Rule 3-6 calling for “immediate, permanent removal” for cheating can be ignored or downplayed.

  • Bob

    Not down playing things but
    There are 2 sets of rules here and you are mixing them together.

    The background check is done by the department responsible for hiring. The academy has no say in who is hired. Academies don’t do the background checks.

    You mention the 2 people kicked out of the academy. But there is a big difference.
    The cheater was kicked out of the academy by the academy.
    The “gang associate” person was fired from the police department which made them ineligible to attend the academy.

    The academy cant fire a recruit but the police department can.

    Kicked off the force = kicked out of the academy
    kicked out of the academy doesn’t = kicked off the job.

    You mention the omibus rule and that sounds good. But a broken omnibus rule is only a class B offense.

    Rule 3-6 was done. The recruit was kicked out and probably permanently (from Mercers academy). That leaves about 15 other academies to attend.

  • Michael Smith

    I enjoy reading your column .
    However, a person cannot take a politicians promise at face value or seriously.
    PS: By the time you receive your open records request,Mr.Perez will be walking a beat and vouching evidence…..

  • Kevin

    Bob – You seem to have some first-person knowledge here, and that’s great. There has not been a lot of first-person informed and on-the-record comment I’ve read (I know that you are not exactly “on-the-record” here, either, since you post without your full name, but that’s ok). Let me ask a few related questions.

    After a dismissal from the Mercer Academy, the administrators there would have had to file a notice of that dismissal with the NJ Police Training Commission, yes?

    Wouldn’t such notice constitute a notice that the dismissed trainee is “ineligible for Commission certification, for unacceptable behavior or for other good cause,” as stated in the PTC’s 2013 Rules, #13:1-7.2(a)8?

    Wouldn’t that determination of ineligibility for Commission certification make it impossible to gain admittance to any other Commission-accredited academy in the rest of the State?

    And yes, a broken omnibus rule counts for only 10 demerits, but I imagine that it is not unlikely that it would be possible to charge multiple violations of that rule, or violations of the omnibus plus other rules that would aggregate to 15 or more demerits.

    Regarding background checks, I understand those would be done by the employing law enforcement agency, in this case Trenton PD. But before the trainee starts his or her academy course, the hiring agency has to certify to the academy that the background check came back clean (Rule 13:1-8.1). Going forward, if the expelled trainee were to apply to another academy in the state, I would think the fact of his expulsion would turn up.

    I’m a little unclear about the lines of authority between the school and the hiring department over a trainee during the period of training. But it does seem to me to be the case that removal from one NJ academy for cause will pretty much make it near impossible to be admitted to another academy, at least in New Jersey.

  • ed w

    Its real simple, if he becomes a cop, whenever he presents evidence in court, the defense will make a motion based on this persons past character for dismissal, even as a records clerk his honesty could be questioned, records tampering.

    with a hiring freeze and no posting of a vacancy, as well as the nepotism allegation, he should be fired and look to get a job in the private sector, if they will have him.