Mobius logic as taught in Palmer’s republic
The taxpayer funded responses to the complaint filed by citizens regarding Trenton Police Director Joseph Santiago’s non-compliance with the city’s residency ordinance rolled in last week.
Angelo Genova, counsel for the Mayor, has claimed that:
a) the city’s residency ordinance is null and void under New Jersey statutes
b) if not null and void under state law, the city’s residency ordinance
conflicts with the Mayor’s “inherent executive powers of appointment and
c) The city’s residency ordinance purports to impose a residency requirement
upon Director Santiago, “a member of a police department and force” in
contradiction of New Jersey law prohibiting same.
Salvatore Alfano, counsel for Director Santiago, responded with his own claims that:
a) the city’s residency ordinance is null and void under New Jersey statues
b) if the residency ordinance is not null and void under state law and applies
to the Director, then the Mayor has the power to grant a waiver
Do these arguments make sense to you?
The city’s residency ordinance has been in effect for quite some time and has been used by the Palmer administration to remove various city employees for non-compliance. Palmer never questioned the constitutionality of it before.
Now, because he’s not getting his way, it’s suddenly in conflict with state law?
Now, because he’s not getting his way, the residency ordinance is in conflict with his power and authority as Mayor?
It didn’t seem to hinder that power and authority when he applied it to dozens of employers over the past 17 plus years.
And what about the assertion that the ordinance imposes a residency requirement upon Director Santiago as a member of the police force?
Doesn’t this contradict the very intent of the referendum changing to a civilian Police Director from a Police Chief?
Doesn’t it also contradict with the long, hard fought case preserving Director Santiago’s rights to collect his police pension because, as Director, he was not a member of a police department and force?
And didn’t Trenton’s ever so generous taxpayers foot the bill for the legal defense in that case as well?
He either is a member of the force who must forego his police pension for the duration of his directorship or he is a civilian and the residency requirement applies.
It only takes common sense to realize the defense attorneys’ arguments make no sense.
And regardless of the outcome of the legal proceedings, the taxpayers of Trenton are the losers as we pay our way out of another Palmer created mess.