ShareThis Page
Latrobe council votes 5-2 to reject chief candidate who missed deadline |

Latrobe council votes 5-2 to reject chief candidate who missed deadline

Jeff Himler
The entrance to the Latrobe police station, seen on Aug. 13, 2018, is marked prominently at the city municipal building on Jefferson Street.

One name will be missing when the Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association interviews candidates to be Latrobe’s next police chief.

City council voted 5-2 on Monday to reject an applicant the association recommended as a top prospect. A majority on council said the candidate, who was not identified, should be disqualified because he missed an advertised deadline for submitting an application.

The city is paying the chiefs association $5,000 for its assistance in screening candidates wanting to succeed Chief James Bumar, who plans to soon retire after 34 years with the department, including eight years as chief.

City manager Wayne Jones expressed hopes the chiefs group will be ready to interview leading candidates next week after reviewing applications, determining which candidates are qualified and ranking them in groups — including six top hopefuls. Once the group has completed its interviews and made its recommendations, council will be free to conduct its own interviews before deciding on a hire.

Councilman Jack Murtha questioned how an application that was submitted after the July 2 deadline — reportedly by a Latrobe man — made it into the pool of the top candidates.

Mayor Rosie Wolford said she wasn’t aware of the deadline when she received the application via email, forwarded it to Jones and inquired if the applicant was too late to consider. Jones said he similarly passed the application along to the chiefs group, which indicated it could still be considered.

According to Jones, the application was received close to a month past the deadline. Yet, he said, the chiefs association deemed the candidate qualified and included him in a list of top hopefuls provided to the city.

After the arrival of the late application, Wolford said, two of the six top candidates identified by the chiefs withdrew their applications. She said the chiefs group once more reviewed and ranked all 16 of the remaining candidates, including the latecomer.

Jim Kelley, Christine Weller, Gerald Baldonieri and Robert Forish joined Murtha in voting to reject the late application. Eric Bartels and Wolford, who participates in council votes, were opposed.

Weller questioned whether the tardy candidate displayed sufficient interest in the chief’s position.

“We’re hiring somebody to be a leader in the community,” she said. “We want somebody who’s going to pay attention to what’s going on in this community.”

She argued that, to be fair, two other candidates who were next in line in ranking should be advanced into the top six before considering someone who missed the deadline.

Kelley was also concerned about being fair to all candidates. By using the services of a third party, he said, “I thought what we were trying to do was have a level playing field.”

Wolford argued that council hired the chiefs group to assist in the review of candidates and should let it decide whether or not it would accept late applications.

“Our job is to get the most-qualified candidate for the position,” Wolford said. “When you get a resume, if the person is qualified, you don’t want to exclude them.”

Jeff Himler is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Jeff at 724-836-6622, [email protected] or via Twitter @jhimler_news.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.