In a press release sent to Glenside Local on Thursday, October 10, the Jenkintown Police Benevolent Association (JPBA) claimed to have cast a unanimous vote of “no confidence” in the leadership ability and performance of Jenkintown Borough Police Chief Thomas Scott.
You can read our coverage of the vote here, which includes statements on behalf of the JPBA, Chief Scott, and Borough Council president Jay Conners.
Today, the JPBA sent us a response to the press release issued by president Conners on Friday, October 11.
The JPBA’s response in full is below:
The Jenkintown Police Benevolent Association is aware of the press release issued by borough council regarding the Vote of No Confidence against Chief Scott and would like to resolve several misconceptions.
The Jenkintown Police Benevolent Association held a meeting on Thursday September 12th for the purpose of, among other things, discussing a vote of confidence. Despite the incredulity expressed by Council President Conners, it is a fact that all member voted in the affirmative. Following that vote, a letter was sent to every member of Jenkintown Borough Council on September 25th . We chose that date with the hope that council would have an opportunity to discuss the matter in executive session without needing to excuse Chief Scott from the room. We believed the vote of no confidence would present an opportunity for council to reflect on decisions that have been made and to seek our side of the story. Sadly, though not surprisingly, after two weeks, not a single council person had so much as acknowledged receipt.
The need to expand these conversations to the public at large has, unfortunately, become routine. While the borough claims to prioritize transparency, actions have demonstrated the contrary. The borough withheld the Smeal report until they were forced by court order to share it. Plans of dissolution of the department were not shared until the Bellevue contract was made public via a Right to Know Request. Reports presented to council during meetings have been kept from the public until the demand for their release became too much to ignore.
Council leadership and Chief Scott have been happy to tout that the JPBA has “walked away from negotiations”, painting us as unreasonable. However, as is well known, the officers have been working under the specter of dissolution for over a year. This threat, thinly veiled by euphemisms, has led to what we feel are ‘take our deal or lose your job’ style bad faith negotiations. Our members did not feel that it would be fair to take another pay cut after having already made concessions to the borough during the COVID-19 pandemic and related economic downturn.
For those unaware, police officers and firefighters generally form employment contracts with the political subdivisions in which they serve under the rubric of Pennsylvania’s Act 111 of 1968. Act 111 says, in part, “If in any case of a dispute between a public employer and its policemen or firemen employees the collective bargaining process reaches an impasse and stalemate…then either party to the dispute, after written notice to the other party containing specifications of the issue or issues in dispute, may request the appointment of a board of arbitration.” And “an impasse or stalemate shall be deemed to occur in the collective bargaining process if the parties do not reach a settlement of the issue or issues in dispute by way of a written agreement within thirty days after collective bargaining proceedings have been initiated.”
The JPBA feels that offers made by the borough have been far from fair and we are troubled by their efforts to portray the exercise of rights afforded to us by law as unscrupulous.
In an effort to deflect accountability, Council leadership has dismissed dissatisfaction that has been expressed by grass-roots movements within the community they serve as being in some way directed by the JPBA. This reflects Council leadership’s inability or unwillingness to effectively communicate or seriously consider the opinions of their constituency.
Conners’ claim that officers have, “resisted, rejected, and stymied efforts at increasing accountability, productivity, and professionalism” is not only defamatory, but is revisionism of the highest order. As is common when leadership changes hands, expectations under Chief Scott are different than those under Chief DiValentino. Officers have strived to meet those expectations whenever they have been communicated. This statement is another deflection on behalf of Council leadership. If their true desire was improvement, the “Smeal Report” would have been provided to officers as a roadmap and would not have required members taking the borough to court to even see what was contained within.
Conners further claims that officers are working “to preserve a status quo that they have enjoyed for years, at the expense of the Borough, its residents, business owners, and visitors.” Once again, this ad hominem attack fails to convey the truth. What is true is that the JBPA has sought to ensure its membership receives protection from unfair labor practices as afforded by the Public Employee Relations Act and similar legislation.
Officers represented by the JPBA have only ever sought to protect and serve the community that we have grown to love as our own. To impugn the integrity of officers who have served and sacrificed for a combined total of 177 years for simply expressing our concerns is a reflection of the very issue we sought to address.
For all the latest news, follow us on Facebook or sign up for Glenside Local’s “Daily Buzz” newsletter here.