Hempstead supervisor says personnel changes were ‘illegal’

Hempstead Supervisor Laura Gillen said Thursday that she was left with no choice but to sue the town board and unions to invalidate personnel changes approved last year that added an unallocated $2.2 million in salaries and created a no-layoff provision in the union contract.

Gillen also said she would file an application to the town to cover her legal expenses in her lawsuit against former Supervisor Anthony Santino, the six sitting board members, the Hempstead Civil Service Commisison and the town employees’ union. The defense of the case will also be paid for by the town.

The lawsuit said she would ask a Nassau County Supreme Court judge to invalidate a resolution that authorized 192 personnel moves and a no-layoff union memorandum clause that would handcuff her administration in a fiscal emergency.

Gillen’s staff later said that a footnote in the lawsuit was asking to invalidate only 14 of the 192 positions, which accounted for $2.2 million in salaries of Santino’s political allies.

The board also unanimously approved 30 Civil Service promotions, which Gillen said would not be affected. She said they would re-examine all positions following the court case.

“It’s imperative the court nullify this illegal action to restore fiscal responsibility to the town because as of right now the town is on an economic collision course should a fiscal emergency arise,” Gillen said at a news conference outside Nassau Supreme Court. “To be very clear, the goal of this lawsuit is not to lay off the hardworking men and women in the Town of Hempstead. The goal is to protect the taxpayers, the 770,000 town residents.”

Santino and union officials declined to comment Thursday.

Gillen and her private Valley Stream-based attorney, Thomas Williams, said they were required to name all six members of the town board, even though the resolutions passed in December were not unanimous. She called council members Erin King Sweeney, Bruce Blakeman and Dorothy Goosby, who voted in part against the resolutions, “nominal defendants” so they would be covered by any court order.

She said she hoped to still work with the town board to manage the town’s finances.

“I do not see this as an aggressive action,” Gillen said. “The board should see this as a decision to manage the budget. This is not a hostile act.”

Board members were not notified until after the lawsuit was filed late Wednesday afternoon because Gillen was coming upon a four-month statute of limitations to file the lawsuit. She said she filed the suit after union negotiations failed and said a legal challenge was the only way to overturn the contract.

King Sweeney, the Republican majority leader, and other board members said they were blindsided by the lawsuit and said it would only make for difficult relations on an already divided board.

“It is beyond my comprehension that I am being sued for something I voted against,” King Sweeney said. “The supervisor has made zero attempts to resolve this dispute. Instead, she informed me around 5 p.m. yesterday. This is a complete waste of taxpayer money. We need leadership and cooperation, not grandstanding. This lawsuit will only delay a resolution of the matter.”

By John Asbury

john.asbury@newsday.comJohnAsbury

John Asbury is a breaking news and general assignment reporter. He has been with Newsday since 2014 and previously worked at The Press-Enterprise in Riverside, California.