TOWN OF HUNTINGTON
Board Looks To Drop Naughton Suit
But highway superintendent’s attorney warns ‘victory’ lap may be premature
By Danny Schrafel/dschrafel@longislandernews.com

The Huntington Town Board said it started the process to end a lawsuit against Highway Superintendent William Naughton in a dispute over the town’s hiring procedures, but Naughton’s attorney has said, “not so fast.”

Stipulations of discontinuance were faxed to Naughton’s attorney and the workers’ union named in the suit on Feb. 25 to begin the process of ending the suit, Huntington spokesman A.J. Carter said. Supervisor Frank Petrone said the lawsuit reminded Naughton of town hiring processes, and had accordingly “served its purpose.”

“We expect Superintendent Naughton will adhere to these procedures in the future,” he said. “There is no longer a need to continue the suit.”

Naughton’s attorney, Tom Levin, said for stipulations of discontinuance to take hold, all parties must consent. He argued the town’s release discussing an end to the lawsuit was misleading.

“They never even discussed it with us,” Levin said. “It’s sort of like declaring victory and going home, the only problem is… they picked this fight and they can’t walk away from it.”

The highway superintendent continues to weigh his legal options and may file his own lawsuit, Levin added. If he does not consent to the stipulations, the town would have to pursue a formal motion to drop their suit.

A union grievance filed by Local 342 Long Island Public Service Workers also remains active, the group’s president, Bill Hennessey, said.

“The people still haven’t been paid for the time they worked. That’s the biggest injustice,” he said. “There were eight people caught in a political battle between the town board and the highway superintendent. They went to work every day… and weren’t paid… until these people get paid, the grievance is open.”

On Feb. 3, the town board voted unanimously to authorize Town Attorney John Leo to sue Naughton, alleging he attempted to hire eight men – five automotive equipment operators, two laborers and a guard – without following town hiring protocol. By the end of that week, Naughton told the men in a letter that their services would no longer be needed.

“We believe that Naughton’s move, telling the eight people they did not have jobs, was indication to us that he came around to the conclusion that the board was right and they control the budget,” Carter said.

Nonsense, Levin said – Naughton has never conceded his right to hire, and only let the workers go because the town refused to pay them.

“He told the people… since the town refuses to pay you or recognize your hiring, I have to terminate you. There’s a liability for letting them continue to work. He didn’t want to run that risk,” he said. “When the court declares that he has the right to hire them, he’s going to hire them back.”

The board’s suit sought to prevent Naughton from hiring independent contractors or filling vacancies without town board approval, prohibit the men from providing services for the Highway Department, and demanded dismissal of a grievance filed by Local 342, which represents blue-collar workers in Huntington government. The eight workers were also named in the suit.

Since the suit was filed, there have been no further attempts to increase staffing in the Highway Department, Carter said.

“We made our point, so there is no need to continue the litigation,” Councilman Mark Cuthbertson added. “We fully expect Superintendent Naughton to work with us going forward, as do all town elected and appointed department heads, to make the difficult but necessary fiscal decisions to hold down taxes and best serve our residents.”

Yet, even with litigation slated to be withdrawn in the near future, several raw nerves exist between the town and Naughton besides his staffing levels. His stock in Democratic circles has taken a beating after he criticized the board in a letter during the 2009 election cycle and endorsed creating town council wards in December. The Highway Superintendent also alleged in a Jan. 28, 2010 memo sent to the board, Petrone and Leo that a pay freeze for elected and appointed officials, instituted in late 2009 through a budget resolution, was enacted illegally.

Naughton said he has not received a reply from the recipients of the pay freeze query, but declined to comment further, citing the ongoing litigation.