GUILDERLAND — A directive to the police department from 1992 has resurfaced as fodder in the competition for police chief here.

Three finalists are left, vying to replace long-time chief, James Murley, who resigned last year in the midst of controversy.

During her second-round interview for the chief’s post on Tuesday night, acting chief Carol Lawlor was asked why information regarding the beleaguered chief hadn’t come to the surface sooner.  She furnished the town board with an order adopted during Murley’s tenure.

“She presented it as evidence of this gag order, making it difficult to come forward,” said Mark Grimm, a freshman Republican on a formerly all-Democratic board; he asked the prompting question of Lawlor.  This order reflects the secrecy that is inherent in the police department, he said, a department for which Lawlor has worked for 30 years. 

“The question is,” he said, “what role did she play?”

Within a month of Murley’s departure, Lawlor approached Supervisor Kenneth Runion with the order and decided to rescind it, Runion said yesterday.  Lawlor declined to comment directly on the order.

“It was not to quiet officers about any wrongdoing on anybody’s part or anything else, for Christ’s sake,” Murley said yesterday.  He wrote the order in 1992 and the town board at the time passed it when the department was in discussions about switching its weapons from service revolvers to semi-automatic weapons.  A councilman at the time had asked an officer about the debate, Murley said, and “it was probably an innocent thing… but we don’t have everybody and their brother talking about policy.”

The first segment of the directive says, “If a member of the Guilderland Town Board should question a member of this department regarding policy or department business, you are to answer the question to the best of your ability, responding with only facts, not assumptions.  If you are unable to respond to the question of the Town Board member, contact your immediate supervisor and he or she will handle the situation.”

“I don’t think that ever should have been issued,” Runion said yesterday.  “It didn’t give an officer the opportunity to go outside of the police agency.”

In its second part, the order, dated July 15, 1992, states: “Whenever any personnel of this department come in contact with a member of the Guilderland Town Board, they are not to question or discuss any department policies or any department business.  If a member of this department has a question or concern about anything going on within the department, they are to bring it to the attention of their immediate supervisor.”

Councilman Warren Redlich, the other freshman Republican on the largely Democratic board, was concerned about the restrictions on officers who might see a problem with their supervisor but have no recourse to action since they are barred from bringing their concerns to the board.  “That’s an illegal order,” he said.

Redlich, a lawyer who has been critical of the Democrats on the board for what he calls promoting “insiders,” said, “This is a document that says there is a culture of secrecy in the department.”  He and Grimm pushed for a process that would include a range of candidates.

“It’s my view that we need somebody from outside to come in and clean up the mess,” he said.  The board also conducted second-round interviews with two candidates for the job who come from outside of the Guilderland department.

“That’s a lie and it insults the integrity of the men and women who serve,” Lawlor responded last night.  The department is professional, she said.

“It’s not secretive,” Lawlor said.  “I rescinded that order.”

“Certainly it was a very open department… but it’s not a nursery school,” Murley said of his time as chief and the need to maintain department privacy.  “I don’t know what they’re doing or why it was rescinded… it’s not any of my business now.”