“We Hear You” Doesn’t Mean “We Care”: BHPD Expansion Returns Without Requested Data

After spending a good portion of the last meeting implying that an ordinance that drastically expands positions at the BHPD didn’t need any sort of evidence other than ‘well we haven’t changed things in so many years and I went to this seminar’ -in between Poage’s need to take breaks during feedback on her AI Ordinance, that Police ordinance is back without the detail or justification residents demanded. It is important to note that Foster ended the meeting with a ‘we hear you’ comment.  

If you recall, Machado (current law enforcement) responded to reasonable feedback by encouraging a resident to stick with the one statement he agreed with and not expressing anything else after a brilliant volley of “really??” “really??”.

‘We hear you’ is different than ‘we care’ and the lack of detail here is evidence of that difference.

Unless, of course, the Town is planning another last-minute addition to the agenda that gives residents no time to evaluate the document drop but gives the Town the ability to say they were available for the meeting.

Needless to say, the police ordinance that was a major focus of the July 21 Berkeley Heights Council Meeting is back for final adoption on the 11th with not much having been changed.

As we reported ahead of the July meeting, Ordinance 2026-19 would add a new deputy chief position, increase the maximum number of lieutenants from two to three and increase patrol officers from 17 to 21. That’s six additional authorized positions in total.

The ordinance also changes some hiring and qualification provisions, including expanding the chief’s ability to waive the education requirement for applicants who meet the Police Training Commission’s minimum educational requirements for the Alternate Route Program and leaves in place the existing provision allowing the Mayor, on the recommendation of the Police Chief, to appoint an otherwise qualified applicant “without examination.”

Following the July meeting, we also covered former Councilwoman Jean Kingsley’s call for greater transparency and accountability before Council moved forward with the expansion. Kingsley called for the data and analysis supporting the six additional positions to be made available to the public.

There were a few minor changes.

The Township corrected two references that incorrectly identified portions of the Police Division ordinance as being under Title 1 instead of Title 2.

But even the weird wording we pointed out in July is still there with one part saying the Town wants to include “special law information officers” while the actual amended code language says “special law informant officers.”

And there still isn’t a fiscal impact statement in the August agenda packet showing what the additional positions could cost taxpayers in salaries, benefits, equipment or other expenses.

Residents can question the level of diligence in connection to this ordinance and any ordinance connected to the police department, particularly with three Council members (Foster, Machado and Moran) having current or former law enforcement backgrounds.

Ordinance 2026-19 is scheduled for public hearing and final adoption on August 11.

Source Documentation