EAST LONGMEADOW – Deposed former interim Town Administrator Gregory Neffinger is seeking approximately $14,000 he claims the town owes him.

Morrison Mahoney LLP, representing Neffinger, submitted a letter to Selectman William Gorman demanding he be compensated with his full salary through July 1 when, according to the new town charter, the position of Town Administrator would be dissolved.

The $14,000 estimate is attributed to Selectman Kevin Manley, who stated the amount would be compensation from April 19 to June 30.

The board fired Neffinger twice. The first vote occurred on April 13 and a re-vote took place on April 19 to address an Open Meeting Law violation that transpired as a result of the initial decision.

The letter, dated May 10, states the selectmen violated the charter, which was approved by voters during the April 12 Town Election. The letter quotes Article 10, Section 7 of the charter.

“Upon the date of taking effect of this charter on April 13, 2016, the Board of Selectmen shall continue to exercise executive functions of the town until the board is abolished provided that the Board of Selectmen shall neither create nor eliminate any position, neither hire nor terminate any employee or elected official, nor execute or extend any employment contract during the transition, except for matters not admitting of delay,” the charter reads.

The letter states, “Based on these facts, Mr. Neffinger is entitled to employment and compensation until July 1, 2016.”

When contacted by Reminder Publications, Neffinger declined to comment on the letter.

Board of Selectman Chair Paul Federici said he believes Neffinger’s conduct interacting with residents at past Board of Selectmen meetings in March justified firing him immediately.

“I believe if you went in front of a judge and showed him those three meetings in March and the townspeople and everything, I think, the judge, would realize that was an emergency situation. Also, I’m fairly certain that we could prove just cause if we have to do that as a last resort.”

Federici said the board has yet to discuss the letter with Town Counsel James Donahue, who did not respond to a request for comment as of press time.

“Obviously, you have to look at the facts and consult with the attorney and if our attorney felt that it’s something we could win … without a tremendous amount of effort, yes, I would consider taking it to court. Obviously, it’s not my decision alone, but if you come into the fact where if for some reason it’s going to cost you $20,000 to settle this then in a perfect world you’d be better off cutting your losses and just paying [Neffinger] and moving on.”

Gorman said he believes Neffinger is entitled to employment and compensation by the town and the April 19 re-vote to fire Neffinger was illegal. Gorman was on vacation and not present for the re-vote.

“As far as I’m concerned [the Board of Selectmen] took an illegal vote because on [April 19], the authority of the selectmen wasn’t in their hands anymore,” he explained. “I don’t think they had any right to fire Mr. Neffinger.”

Gorman said he thinks Neffinger “got a raw deal.”

“I think the townspeople didn’t treat him good and I think he deserves a little better treatment,” he noted.

Selectman Kevin Manley said he doesn’t believe Neffinger would be entitled to compensation.

“His argument is we didn’t have the authority to let him go,” Manley explained. “I believe the selectmen had the authority because what he fails to say in there is there’s exceptions for matters that cannot be delayed. And in my opinion, his employment and all surrounding issues that we had when he came in … with the police chief, with attitude towards the town at the [Board of Selectmen] meetings and just his general demeanor, to me, that wasn’t something that we could wait on. It was in the best interest in the town that we didn’t wait to ride out a contract.”

He continued, “He was in a position of trust and authority in the town and the fact of the matter is the townspeople – the constituency in this town – lost any sort of confidence in his ability to do the job. That’s what this clause is specifically meant for. My interpretation of the article is so [the selectmen] don’t hire all our friends at the last minute to take high positions or we’re just getting rid of someone because we don’t like them.”

Got a comment about this story? Go to http://speakout.thereminder.com and let us know.