To the Editor:

Under pressure from the press, Princeton’s police department has released a redacted version of a recent contract between the department and Princeton University’s Department of Public Safety regarding law enforcement in our community. Having such a contract as a proposal for mayor and Council action is a positive first step, but what’s missing is more involvement by our elected representatives and transparency.

Mayor and Council, not the police, have the authority to enter into contracts on the town’s behalf. Mayor and Council, not the police, are directly accountable to the constituents whom such contract affects. So it is mayor and Council, not the police, who should disclose the contents of any proposed contract, consider its public safety and budget implications, and take formal action to approve or disapprove it after disclosure and public debate.

After all, who runs our local government, the governing body or the police and the University?

Missing from public discussion of the present document is clarity about precisely which crimes the police, as opposed to the University, will investigate. The document reportedly says “some” crimes will be investigated by municipal police. Really — which ones? And who decides?

Criminal activity fueled by alcohol abuse and sex occur relatively frequently in the younger University community than in the municipality generally. Will the University, concerned about its public image, properly investigate those crimes? Is rape on Prospect Avenue different if it occurs on campus at the intersection of Washington Road or instead, say, at the intersection of Riverside Drive — or at the High School or Westminster Choir College? Such selective enforcement seems patently unconstitutional. How could it be appropriate?

Also missing from the public discussion is the question of jurisdiction: where will municipal police defer to the University? Is the line drawn at the campus border? Or at any building owned by the University, even if located outside the campus, such as faculty and staff housing, office buildings, or University commercial locations on Nassau Street?

Also missing is participation by the Mercer County Prosecutor, the ultimate arbiter of local criminal prosecution. He hasn’t signed it. Does the prosecutor support the present proposal, and to what extent, or will he disclaim it? Rutgers University and the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s office were at odds in the Tyler Clemente investigation, with Rutgers administrators under threat of indictment. Why hasn’t our county prosecutor signed on?

These and other questions deserve greater public consideration than has been afforded to date by the release of a redacted police/public safety agreement. The municipality’s public safety committee should hold public hearings concerning the proposal and its implications for public safety in our community. Public safety should not be contracted away by the police for the benefit of any private institution without appropriate disclosure and review.

Roger Martindell

Patton Avenue