Nov 12, 2009 By Shelly Roberts 4 min read

I feel that I must respond to attorney Melenyzer’s statements in the article published in this paper on Nov. 6. His statements would lead anyone to believe that the “we” he refers to in his quote “We violated the contract” pertains to only members of California Borough Council.

I suggest that Melenyzer clarify the “we” to include himself, the mayor and any member of council who knew that the probation period was “180 consecutive days” and not “six months” as council was repeatedly led to believe. Several council members specifically asked about the probation period several times and the reply was always “six months.”

Melenyzer stated that “There was misinformation to council that the 180th day would have been the day after the last council meeting.” He goes on to say, “In reality, we terminated him as a temporary employee three or four days after the 180th day.” In reality, I would like to know what council he is talking about. Perhaps he has us confused with another township he represents.

The very first time I and other council members heard the phrase “180 consecutive days” was from Councilman Walter Weld who heard it approximately a week after the vote was taken.

There were two officers that were to be voted upon that evening. Melenyzer informed us that we did not have to vote on the other officer. Mrs. Gallo and I both asked why and were told that it wasn’t necessary. I was left baffled by this advice because I couldn’t figure out how Melenyzer knew what our votes would be since I certainly did not tell him mine. I still find this advice questionable and even more so considering the recent events coming to light.

Melenyzer also suggests that someone counted the days. Another surprise. I would like to know exactly who did this count and when it occurred.

As for Mayor Durdines, whose responsibilities include the police department and public safety, he certainly should’ve known the specific language of the contract and informed us in a timely fashion.

The events that led to officer Dorcan’s termination vote were well known by the mayor in plenty of time to give council accurate information concerning the probation period. He did not.

The mayor seems to have a habit of withholding information from council. In September, five members of council received an anonymous letter concerning the police department. He held a personal meeting only inviting Councilwoman Gallo, who informed Councilwoman Chambers and myself about this meeting.

When Mrs. Chambers and I arrived, the mayor pulled Mrs. Gallo aside and told her to tell us to go home. She did not. We stayed. That meeting turned out to be so vital that every member of council should have been invited and urged to attend. They were not. There is something terribly wrong when council has to be told what is going on in the police department by an anonymous letter instead of the mayor.

How convenient for the mayor that he wasn’t able to attend the Nov. 5 executive session because of his job obligations in Windber. It is also very convenient that this information comes out after the recent election.

In my opinion, the responsibility for this debacle lies squarely on the shoulders of Melenyzer, Mayor Durdines, any member of council who might have known before the vote was taken about the real probation period and the mysterious coun-ter. I feel that they should immediately resign and apologize for the mess that the residents and taxpayers of California Borough will be paying for in more than just tax dollars.

Shelly Roberts is a California Borough Councilwoman.