Talk about term limits!
Half a dozen top NYPD commanders will be forced to retire soon because of Gov. Paterson’s recent veto of a bill that would have allowed them to work past the mandatory retirement age, The Post has learned.
The Sept. 26 veto sank a bill that would have barred “the mandatory retirement or separation from service on the basis of age of police officers age 65 or less.”
Had the governor signed the bill, NYPD commanders would have been entitled to remain on the force for three more years, beyond the current mandatory retirement age of 62.
The law would have been applicable to all police agencies throughout the state – and that’s a key reason why Paterson balked at signing it.
The veto means the NYPD will lose a significant portion of its top hierarchy, including three of its nine so-called superchiefs, a position outranked only by the chief of department and the police commissioner himself, sources said.
Three other two-star assistant chiefs will be forced to pack it in, sources said.
Those who must soon retire include:
* Chief of Detectives George Brown.
* Chief of Transportation Michael Scagnelli.
* Assistant Chief Lowell Stahl, commanding officer of the Office of the Police Commissioner.
* Assistant Chief William Crawley, second-in-command of the Internal Affairs Bureau.
* Chief of Patrol Robert Giannelli.
* Assistant Chief Edwin Young, second-in-command of the Office of Chief of Department.
Public records and informed sources say Stahl will be the first to go, as he must retire sometime before early December, when he turns 63.
His departure will likely be followed by those of Scagnelli, Crawley, Young and Brown, all who must turn in their shields by next August.
Giannelli, the youngest member of the group, won’t have to retire until March 2010, when he turns 63, records indicate.
The legislation Paterson rejected was sponsored by two Brooklyn legislators, Assemblyman Alec Brook-Krasny and state Sen. Martin Golden, a former NYPD cop and chairman of the Senate Aging Committee.
Paterson claimed the bill was “significantly flawed,” insisting it “imposes a cookie-cutter approach on a host of state and local police forces” that now have different retirement rules.