GUILDERLAND — Reversing an earlier vow to fight charges of wrongdoing, Guilderland’s beleaguered police chief is retiring.

Thirty-five years of service will come to an end on May 30 for James Murley.

Amidst allegations of misconduct and an upcoming hearing that could have removed him from the police force, Murley, 61, will retire as police chief by the end of the month.
After an hour-long closed-door executive session following Tuesday night’s town board meeting, Supervisor Kenneth Runion told reporters "an agreement" was made regarding Murley’s future with the town.

The deal struck with the town allows Murley to keep his retirement benefits from his $97,000 post, as well as his accrued vacation time. Runion said Murley ended official association with the police department last Friday, and will retire on May 30. The New York State Comptroller’s Office confirmed that it has received Murley’s retirement notification.

He is using his remaining vacation days until that time, Runion said
According to the town’s attorney, Richard Sherwood, the agreement was finalized last Friday after attorneys began talking on "either Wednesday or Thursday." Murley’s attorney in the proceeding, William J. Cade, is out of town for the next week and could not be reached for comment.

The town hired Brian O’Donnell to represent Guilderland during the case.

When Murley was first suspended in March, Cade told The Enterprise the charges were unfounded and vowed to fight the proceedings. He said then that Murley had no plans to retire.

Murley was charged with sexual harassment, misconduct with a vendor, violation of the town’s ethics law, and not keeping accurate attendance and leave records.
"I had contact with their office on another matter and that’s when we started talking about this," Sherwood said about Cade’s law firm. "We spent Thursday and Friday working out the details"It was a joint effort through the attorneys involved."

However, according to the office of Albany County District Attorney David Soares, Murley is still being investigated for criminal charges in the matter.
"The decision of Tuesday’s meeting has no impact on our investigation," said Soares’s spokeswoman, Heather Orth. "It’s still an ongoing investigation and our Public Integrity Unit is looking into criminal misconduct."

Runion told the Enterprise that the town’s hearing on Murley’s possible violations, which were scheduled for May 10, could have been used in the district attorney’s criminal investigation.

With Tuesday’s settlement, the town has dropped its proceedings against Murley.
"Best solution"
"There will be no formal hearing," Runion said. "Everyone on the board has agreed that this is the best solution."
Runion told the press Tuesday night that Murley had not gone unpunished. "He has suffered as a result of the allegations"He lost his job," said the supervisor.

Runion had said in March that, although Murley could avoid the hearing by retiring, but there could be penalties after retirement, through the town’s ethics law. But under a section 75 proceeding, only specific penalties could occur such as suspension without pay, a reprimand, a fine up to $100, or termination.
"The worse that could happen to him was termination under the proceeding," said Runion. "Retirement is the same thing"it’s basically as if you went through the hearing."

The town would save money having Murley retire, he said, which has already cost the town for attorney’s, a hearing officer, and other administrative costs.

Murley also lost a month of salary and benefits while he was on unpaid leave, said Runion, but he retained his medical benefits during that time.

Explaining further, Runion said that, even if Murley were found guilty on all of the administrative charges the town was investigating, he would still be entitled to his New York State retirement benefits.
"It is New York State law"It’s based on his years of service," Runion said on Tuesday.

This way, Runion continued, the town is spared a potentially lengthy, and costly, removal process if the hearing officer recommended firing Murley. Kevin Luibrand, a well-known local attorney, was selected by the town board to be the hearing officer in the proceedings.
All of the charges looked into by the town were strictly "administrative disciplinary matters," Runion said in March.

Murley was placed on paid administrative leave on Feb. 8 after a town department head lodged a complaint with the supervisor’s office on Feb. 5.

Since that time, the police department’s deputy chief of police, Carol Lawlor, has been running the police station. Lawlor had filled in for Murley in the past, when he was diagnosed with Lyme disease.

Runion would not say this week if Lawlor will be named as the new police chief, but only that the board would conduct a search for a chief following the Civil Service guidelines, which includes testing each qualified candidate.

The supervisor did not put a timeline on the search.

When asked, Lawlor said she would make a decision when the time came.
"That’s a decision that I will have to make when the town board is ready to start looking for someone," Lawlor told The Enterprise. "We’re just concentrating on doing our jobs to the best of our abilities right now."

Hearing officer attacked

Luibrand’s appointment was met with some controversy, but town officials maintained they were confident in their selection.

Attorney John Aretakis, an outspoken defender of victims abused by priests, was highly critical of Luibrand because his law firm, Tobin and Dempf, represents the Albany Diocese.
After writing two letters to the town, Aretakis filed a lawsuit against the town for $1 million on Monday. He cited in his notice of claim that his clients were being "damaged in an incalculable amount" because of "anxiety and triggering episodes" due to Luibrand’s appointment.
In a letter to the town yesterday, Aretakis said he is "not dropping the claim," even though there will be no hearing because Murley’s lawyer, Cade, also asked to have Luibrand removed.

Town Attorney Sherwood said yesterday that Cade didn’t want Luibrand presiding over the hearing because of a conflict of interest resulting from litigation that occurred 10 years ago.

In 1997, The Enterprise broke a series of stories involving political wrangling and allegations of abuses and cover-ups in Town Hall. Luibrand was defending a town employee against accusations of taped telephone conversations and fake letters to the Enterprise editor regarding Murley.

Some of the allegations against Murley then, such as misusing vacation and sick time, were similar to the charges lodged against him this year.

However, Sherwood said, the town did not see a conflict of interest because of a previous lawsuit.

Supervisor Runion said that neither Aretakis’s letters and lawsuit, nor Cade’s request to remove Luibrand from the proceedings had any impact or influence on the town board’s decision on Tuesday.

Luibrand maintained throughout that he was qualified for the job.
"I know all the aspects of these cases," Luibrand told The Enterprise after being selected as the hearing officer. Being a lawyer for more than 20 years, Luibrand has been a town attorney and has tried cases in both federal circuit courts and the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, he said.

Runion said it’s not uncommon for these types of cases to be settled before an actual hearing or trial occurs.
"The legal system actually encourages attorneys to talk with each other and try to come up with a settlement," said Runion, who was an attorney. "The system would be completely back logged if everything made it to the steps of a courthouse."