Code official cited his own boss for violation Boro's case against employee open to public at defendant's request BY MICHAEL ACKER Staff Writer SAYREVILLE - A borough employee will get his wish to have his own disciplinary hearing open to the public. Borough Labor Attorney Robert J. Merryman told the Suburban that the borough has agreed to open the hearing of Michael Gianotto, a code enforcement and construction department official, at the request of Gianotto's attorney, David Brook. "He requested it and we have no objection to that," Merryman said. "We didn't see any reason to delay this thing. We would prefer to have this matter move along." Gianotto faces possible termination from his borough position due to several charges he is facing. According to Brook, the charges include failing to comply with directions and recommendations given by Borough Business Administrator Jeffry Bertrand, who is Gianotto's supervisor; failing to properly oversee the performance of his subordinates' hours of work and attendance; using a borough vehicle for a personal reason; and taking unauthorized vacation without prior notice. Gianotto is also charged with failing to safeguard and account for plans for construction projects; threatening reprisal toward a local architect in the presence of the architect's son, who is a subordinate employee; and repeatedly being absent from the performance of his duties without explanation or with false explanations as to his whereabouts. Merryman would not confirm those charges, because it is a personnel matter. "I am not going to talk about personnel matters, especially before the hearing. The borough doesn't talk about personnel matters in the open as a matter of law and a matter of policy," Merryman said. Brook said the charges against Gianotto are politically motivated on the part of Bertrand, who, the defense claims, instructed Gianotto to ignore violations and improperly issue construction permits. Bertrand emphatically denied that allegation. "One of the issues that will [be presented] at the hearing has to do with pressure put on Mr. Gianotto by the B.A. [business administrator] to do certain things," Brook said. "It also has to do with the dissatisfaction on the part of the B.A. to not have certain things happen, which might make him look bad." Brook was referring to a citation that Gianotto issued to Bertrand in December for violations of the state Uniform Construction Code Act at Bertrand's residence in the borough. "Mr. Gianotto had to cite Mr. Bertrand for violating the Uniform Construction Code by building another substantial addition on his house without getting a building permit," Brook said. The matter of Bertrand's violation, according to Brook, put Gianotto in a difficult position. "Addressing a fine against your boss doesn't go over very well," Brook said. Merryman said he was unaware of those allegations, adding that Brook has not documented them. "I don't know anything about it, so I can't address it," Merryman said. The borough has asked Brook to present documentation of his allegations, he said. "So far he has not," Merryman noted. Brook said he cannot get records from the borough that he needs to defend his client. "They can't deny access to public documents under the Open Public Records Act," Brook said. "Some of these documents are not public, but they can't deny me access to these, because it relates directly to this matter. This means that I may need to take other steps to gain access to the documents." Brook said he requested to review documents related to the matter, but received a letter from Merryman denying him access. "I can't refute the allegations if I can't gain access to public documents that probably have information to exonerate [Gianotto]," Brook said. Merryman told the Suburban that access to the documents that Brook requested is not typically allowed. "[Brook] wanted him and his client to have carte blanche to go through borough files," Merryman said. "That is not something that is typically allowed. There are procedures." Bertrand told the Suburban that the reason for Gianotto's disciplinary hearing is his performance. "I am sure that you will see during the course of the hearing [in regard to] the timeline that went down that Mr. Gianotto was made aware, weeks in advance of anything [involved] with my house, of the displeasure we had with him as an employee. I think you will see that the order of events is opposite of what you're being told." The hearing officer will make an official recommendation at the hearing, Bertrand said. He noted that Gianotto's status as an employee will be officially decided at a later date and not at the hearing. "The purpose of the hearing is to have an independent entity, the hearing officer, make a recommendation as to the status of Mr. Gianotto's employment," Bertrand said. "The hearing officer issues a nonbinding statement." Bertrand said he paid the fine for the violation at his home and made the adjustments to bring his property into compliance with the state law. "What happened was, I called for final inspection of my house," Bertrand said. "I was told that I didn't have a temporary certificate of occupancy, which I thought I had. The inspector told my contractor and I that I needed temporary handrails on the front steps and basement steps." Bertrand said he had the temporary handrails installed soon after the inspector notified him of the issue. He said he was then given a temporary certificate of occupancy. "I paid the fine," Bertrand said. "I didn't do it intentionally, and the minute I found out about the problem I fixed it." While the hearing is scheduled for Feb. 7, Brook said it may not proceed on that date if he cannot get the documents he needs from the borough. "A whole lot of things are happening to affect whether it does [take place on Feb. 7] or not," Brook said. "The borough took one step forward and three steps backwards." make a recommendation as to the status of Mr. Gianotto's employment," Bertrand said. "The hearing officer issues a nonbinding statement." Bertrand said he paid the fine for the violation at his home and made the adjustments to bring his property into compliance with the state law. "What happened was, I called for final inspection of my house," Bertrand said. "I was told that I didn't have a temporary certificate of occupancy, which I thought I had. The inspector told my contractor and I that I needed temporary handrails on the front steps and basement steps." Bertrand said he had the temporary handrails installed soon after the inspector notified him of the issue. He said he was then given a temporary certificate of occupancy. "I paid the fine," Bertrand said. "I didn't do it intentionally, and the minute I found out about the problem I fixed it." While the hearing is scheduled for Feb. 7, Brook said it may not proceed on that date if he cannot get the documents he needs from the borough. "A whole lot of things are happening to affect whether it does [take place on Feb. 7] or not," Brook said. "The borough took one step forward and three steps backwards."