Spotswood mayor tapes: 'The public needs to know' or they 'should have been destroyed'

The legal battle over whether recordings of Spotswood Mayor Jackie Palmer's interaction with police during an incident at Borough Hall two years ago should become public boils down to whether a Superior Court judge decides if the public has a right to see them or if they should be destroyed because they were made illegally.

Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Michael Toto has scheduled a hearing on May 10 to hear arguments whether the 10 recordings made in the course of an April 2022 incident when police were called to deal with a Black resident allegedly causing a disturbance at the municipal building should be released.

The controversy over the bodycam footage accelerated when Richard Sasso, president of the Spotswood PBA, filed a Superior Court lawsuit on Jan. 15 against Palmer and the borough, alleging violations of the state's Whistleblower Law and other charges.

The recordings, Sasso argues in his lawsuit, illustrate Palmer's "antagonism" toward police and possible inappropriate "racially charged" comments she made about the incident.

Gannett, the parent company of MyCentralJersey.com and the Home News Tribune, along with borough resident Steven Wronko have filed Open Public Records Act (OPRA) requests for the recordings which Toto has released only to the attorneys of the parties in this case.

Toto wrote to the lawyers that his decision whether to release the recordings is based on whether they were made as "part of a continuous event," made surreptitiously or in contravention of the state's body-worn camera (BWC) law and the state Attorney General's guidelines.

CJ Griffin, attorney for Gannett, argues in her brief to Toto that "the public needs the whole story."

"The public deserves to see every video, as it will allow the public to verify whether the statements Sasso attributes to the mayor in his complaint are truthful," Griffin argues.

But Matt Moench, the attorney for Palmer, argues the videos "were improperly taken" and "the officers knew exactly what they were doing – improperly and surreptitiously recording the mayor outside the BWC policy."

Moench says the recordings, now in the hands of the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office, should have been destroyed.

He also contends the conduct of the police officers "raises even greater questions" about their actions "which should be taken seriously by the court. The actions were wrong, they were intentional and those actions should not be rewarded or even remotely justified."

More: Judge blocks Spotswood council's effort for special counsel in town's legal woes

Kathryn Hatfield, attorney for the borough, also argues the recordings should be destroyed because they were "surreptitiously made with no notice to the mayor for reasons we can only speculate."

Hatfield also maintains the interaction between the mayor and the officers was not part of a continuous event but "very clearly an administrative strategy meeting."

Hatfield concludes that "indiscriminate dissemination of the recordings in contravention of law and policy erodes public confidence more than it bolsters it."

But, in its brief, the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office argues that keeping the BWCs activated during the officers' meeting with the mayor "was altogether appropriate under BWC policy and statute."

"It would have been inappropriate and potentially prejudicial … if the officers did not record their interactions with the individuals who requested service, especially if those conversations contained indications that … race may have been a factor in the request for service," the Prosecutor's Office wrote in its brief to the judge.

"Recording these interactions is consistent with the BWC policy that favors capturing police encounters in their entirety rather than through selective recordings," the Prosecutor's Office's brief continues.

Griffin concludes that the videos "provide neutral evidence of what occurred and the public deserves to see them."

"The public should also see and hear the mayor speak," Griffin wrote, "so it can judge whether her statements were 'racially charged,' as Sasso alleges in his complaint, and whether her interactions with law enforcement were proper."

Sasso's lawsuit is one of many that police officers have filed against the borough and even each other.

In the 45-page lawsuit, Sasso alleges Palmer repeatedly interfered in the police department and retaliated against him.

In one part of the lawsuit, Sasso details "racially charged" April 2022 incidents when a Black resident came to the municipal building and was allegedly confronted by Palmer.

More: Spotswood mayor trying to trample residents' constitutional rights, court papers charge

Sasso alleges that in surveillance he reviewed, he saw Palmer "being extremely antagonistic" and telling the resident he had to listen to her because she "is the mayor."

The surveillance also shows Palmer ignoring a police captain's advice to stay in her office rather than approach the man, Sasso alleges.

When the resident returned to the municipal building six days later, police were dispatched to the building because unnamed municipal employees felt unsafe because the resident was there, the suit contends, and they asked for police escorts to their offices.

But, during that time, the suit says, Palmer went on a "verbal tirade" because the man was not removed from the building.

The mayor allegedly said, "everyone is going to get an (expletive) chewing because if I (expletive) call downstairs and say get this (expletive) guy out of here," according to the lawsuit.

"I don't give a (expletive) if (expletive) Spotswood is on fire, there's got to be someone downstairs that can two foot this (expletive) stairs to find out what's happening," the lawsuit quotes the mayor.

After police called the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office to confirm the resident could not be ejected from the building because it would a violation of his civil rights if he were not committing a criminal act, Palmer was told of that directive from the authority that oversees all police departments in the county, the suit says.

But Palmer became "immediately hostile" and made "inappropriate comments," Sasso alleges, including "we need to control the perception of what's happening" and "I don't need BLM and the KKK fighting on our front steps over this."

The suit alleges that Palmer had the municipal administration initiate an Internal Affairs investigation into the police officers who were present because their bodycams recorded Palmer's comments.

That was done, Sasso said, as a legal strategy to block any potential OPRA requests for video footage of the meeting. One of the officers has since left the department.

Palmer has also suspended Police Chief Phillip Corbisiero and Acting Capt. Nicholas Mayo Jr., the two top-ranking officers in the Spotswood Police Department, on a litany of infractions, from incompetence and insubordination to discrimination and sexual harassment.

In January, Corbisiero filed a $2.5 million tort claim against the borough, claiming he has been subjected to a hostile work environment, harassment, retaliation, age discrimination and defamation by Palmer, Borough Administrator Brandon Umba and Assistant Business Administrator John Scrivanic, a retired Tinton Falls police chief.

Corbisiero alleges that he has been targeted for filing a lawsuit in 2020 with former Police Chief Michael Zarro alleging they were victims of age discrimination and whistleblowing retaliation against former Mayor Ed Seely and former Business Administrator Dawn McDonald. Zarro received an out-of-court settlement for $350,000 and Corbisiero received $120,000.

Email: mdeak@mycentraljersey.com

Mike Deak is a reporter for mycentraljersey.com. To get unlimited access to his articles on Somerset and Hunterdon counties, please subscribe or activate your digital account today.

This article originally appeared on MyCentralJersey.com: Spotswood NJ mayor tapes: Will the public get to see them?