The  borough’s Police Department earned the coveted New Jersey State Association of Chiefs of Police Re-accreditation after receiving the first accreditation three years ago.

The presentation of the honor was made  at Thursday’s meeting of the Mayor and Council with Mayor Loretta Gluckstein congratulating Chief Scott Reinert on behalf of the council and the community.

Reinert had invited a team of assessors from the  Chiefs Association to examine all aspects of the  policies and procedures, management, operations, and support services of the department last April. At the time, the Chief pointed out that  “verification by the team that the Atlantic Highlands Police Department meets the Commission’s “best practice” standards is part of a voluntary process to achieve accreditation, a highly prized recognition of law enforcement professional excellence.”

As part of the final on-site assessment, employees and members of the general public were also  invited to provide comments to the assessment team.

Reinert said he sought the re-accreditation, which only approximately one-third of departments across the state achieve,  since “it results in greater accountability within the agency, reduced risk and liability exposure, stronger defense against civil lawsuits, increased community advocacy, and more confidence in the agency’s ability to operate efficiently and respond to community needs.”

The award was presented by  Program Director for the e Association Harry J Delgado, Ed.S at the meeting. He is the Accreditation Program Director for the  NJ State Association of Chiefs of Police. The assessment team is composed of law enforcement practitioners from similar state law enforcement agencies, who review written materials, interview agency members, and visit offices and other places where compliance with the standards can be observed.

Once that phase of assessment is complete, assessors report to the full Commission, which decides if the agency has earned the status

Valid for a three-year period re-accreditation continues the mandate to submit annual reports attesting to continued compliance with standards under which it was accredited.

The New Jersey State Association of Chiefs of Police through its New Jersey Law Enforcement Accreditation Commission is the legitimate authority and accreditation agency in the state of New Jersey.

The accreditation statutes affects things like how the department will be viewed by insurance companies, and usually results grading as  a lower risk. The certificate is also a “don’t tread on me” flag. Departments that are accredited are subject to much fewer frivolous lawsuits than those that are not.

There are 112 national law enforcement standards the department had to reach, maintain and practice in order to be re-accredited.

Mayor and Council, one more time, failed to act on the proposed cannabis ordinance blaming the inability on a technicality before also citing they have not made any decisions on recommendations from the planning board for the ordinance.

A stand room only crowd packed Borough Hall for a busy agenda Thursday night, but a revised agenda late in the afternoon noted the ordinance 09-2022 was tabled to a future meeting.

The technicality, which was corrected at last night’s meeting, was the lack of an official record on the introduction of the ordinance in June. The ordinance was introduced June 9 and all council members were present, voting 4-1 with one abstention. However, in approving those minutes at the next meeting no member of council noticed or corrected the fact these actions were not even mentioned, let alone the vote transcribed in the official minutes.

However, Councilman Jon O’Crowley said later in the meeting council could not have acted anyway inasmuch as the planning board had made several recommendations, a statement true only if  Council made a decision to adopt any of those recommendations.

There was no indication at last night’s meeting whether council had reviewed the suggestions set up by a planning board subcommittee and forwarded by the planning board last week.

Without a public hearing and the demise of this ordinance, nearly two dozen residents still spoke on cannabis businesses in the borough some for and some opposed to adoption of any ordinance which would permit both the manufacture and retail sale of cannabis.

Two real estate professionals opposed cannabis business on the grounds statistics they cited showed they would result in depreciation of property value. Others said the income produced by businesses would be offset by higher costs necessary for police, public works and other costs; others objected on the grounds the community is too small, any location would be too close to the elementary school, they would draw crowds that would “hang around,” or would encourage more theft since cannabis is largely a cash business.

Speakers in favor of stores and manufacturing offered other statistics showing monetary benefits to towns that permit the business, medical marijuana would be more easily accessible for those in need,  health issues are more important than land values, and thefts would not increase since these businesses would be required to have security personnel on premises.

“You have a special town here,” one new resident said, saying he did not want to see any changes in what drew him here with his family.

Mark Fisher, a frequent voice during public portions of the meeting, suggested several changes the council should consider when they write and introduce a new ordinance, pointing to areas the planning board did not address in addition to the recommendations they did make to be considered. He pointed out the planning board did not address signage, specifications on odor emanations, specifics on security cameras, and a clarification on whether persons under 21 years of age are permitted other areas of a mixed use building if cannabis is a permitted use in one portion of it.

Fisher also quoted Councilwoman Lori Hohenleitner’s comments from a previous meeting where she indicated there are elected officials in the borough that consume cannabis products and asked her to identify them. Kira S. Dabby, a lawyer with the Archer Law group in Red Bank with borough attorney Jason Sena, was present at the meeting in Sena’s absence, and advised those on the Council not to respond to the question.  Fisher had quoted Hohenleitner as saying her concern was  “what is the reasoning behind people being against it? Is it because people don’t want to have to be on-record as consuming these products?”  The Council-Woman in saying “people” was referring to a fellow council-members or multiple fellow council-members.