The meeting’s focal point was the disciplinary proceedings against Captain Shashan, who faced multiple allegations that included falsifying detention logs and failing to conduct required inspections. These charges, which were substantiated through an internal affairs investigation, raised critical questions about his integrity. The council discussed a detailed 15-page report from a hearing officer, which concluded that Shashan was guilty of the charges, highlighting the falsification of official records as particularly egregious. The report stressed the importance of honesty for police officers, given their need to testify credibly in court.

The attorney representing the borough explained that the internal affairs investigation had identified inconsistencies in Shashan’s account, particularly during an interview with Lieutenant Mike Klepaki. Data suggested that Shashan had only accessed the facility five times in one year, despite signing off on over 200 inspection logs. Moreover, he was reportedly out of town on 18 of the days he claimed to have conducted these inspections.

During the council’s deliberations, the implications of Captain Shashan’s potential untruthfulness were thoroughly examined. Council members were reminded of the serious career repercussions that could result from a finding of untruthfulness, including the impact on an officer’s testimony in court and inclusion on the Brady-Giglio list, which could affect his ability to serve in law enforcement.

The council was presented with a recommendation for termination, but members debated alternative penalties, such as demotion or suspension. It was noted that the council had discretion in determining the appropriate penalty, with the possibility of demotion to sergeant or even patrol officer and a suspension of up to six months. Despite earlier offers of a double demotion to sergeant, which Shashan declined, the council ultimately voted in favor of a demotion to lieutenant coupled with a six-month suspension.

This disciplinary action followed discussions among council members, who expressed frustration with the management of departmental responsibilities and the overall integrity of the police department’s leadership structure. Acknowledging the broader implications of their decision, the council emphasized the necessity of holding officers accountable to maintain public trust and ensure community safety.

In addition to the formal proceedings, the meeting featured a public comment period where residents highlighted concerns about the police department’s leadership. One resident criticized the perceived favoritism in the department, urging the council to promote officers based on merit and fairness. Another individual shared a personal account of alleged harassment and retaliation within the department.

The council was urged to consider the ramifications of their decisions on both the department and the community.