For nearly three months, certain four members of the governing body lambasted three whistle-blowers from a Garwood community Facebook page regarding claims of deficiency of Garwood’s Fire Command’s certifications. However, it was the governing body that was the culprit in the lying, the subterfuge, the evasiveness, the coverup, the sins of omission, the name calling. This sad chapter finally ends as the governing body corrects Ordinance #23-28 with a new ordinance #24-11 at the latest council meeting of April 23.
Our Fire Command’s certification ordinance goes back decades and imposes on our Fire Command to meet “Fire Officers 1 and 2” certification of training. Assurance of the certification process was even brought up during the October, 2023 ordinance review which had been under revision by Garwood Fire Chief Scalzadona. This question was broached by then Councilwomen Rachel Herz and Kim Salmon. However, the other three council members and the Mayor just dismissed them since the claimants were of the minority party on council.
I had commented back in February and March that the governing body’s priorities are public interest and avoiding liability to the borough. In the three months of consistent questioning from the public, the council continued to give out disinformation that our fire department officers were fully certified. The residents were incredulous by their lack of concern about liability. In two separate front page HAWK interviews and articles, the governing body and the fire chief had gone into damage control mode, the chief going so far to refer to the whistle-blowers claims as outright lies.
The governing body, by action seemed rather to cover-up the liability issue instead of addressing it. Last council meeting I gave them the potential example of why they were so wrong. Herewith: Say our fire department responded to a fire, and an incident happened to a person on site; and he wanted to sue the borough because of possible negligence. The plaintiff’s lawyer would ask through discovery for all legal documents that cover the certification of the Fire Officers on site and their applicable certificates. In review, the lawyer would find that our Fire Officers were missing “Fire Officer 1 and 2” certificates. The judge asking why our officers were deficient in certification, a response taken from recent quotes, the residents heard what our defense could have been: Fire Chief Scalzadona in one council meeting stated “it was an oversight.” Councilman Kearney in your HAWK interview said, “it wasn’t our intent.” How does a person even know what the intent was when the original ordinance was written? Judge would rule and Garwood would have owed big from that liability. Just the fact of the governing body revising the ordinance to delete certification wordage says they raised the white flag. I even referred to our borough attorney at the council meeting, so the Mayor could have easily asked him if what I said was accurate. Perhaps she was too afraid to hear his legal opinion.
We, the borough, dodged the proverbial bullet. But the damage to the councilmember’s and the Mayor’s trust and credibility questions their leadership in the eyes of the residents. The fact is that we hear no apology from them. Our sanctimonious governing body may surprisngly still think they are right. And that should scare all of us.
Bruce Paterson Garwood
