South Farmingdale Water Commissioners John Hirt, Ralph Atoria and Kurt Ludwig settled a lawsuit by agreeing to repay the Water District $333.33 each toward the cost of a recent newsletter which was published just before the Dec. 11 water commissioner's election.

The multi-page color, glossy newsletter featured Ludwig, a candidate for re-election, on the front page. The lawsuit was filed right before the election by challenger Craig Heller. Heller, a North Massapequa resident, is also a partner at Heller & Verdi law firm in East Meadow.

"The purpose in the end of the lawsuit really was so that we can have this issue come to the floor and so it would show certain things are going on in the special districts," he explained. "While I still believe that the cost to the taxpayer was significant, this would've taken a lot more legal work to get to that point. The point has been made."

The Jan. 24 settlement was ordered by Nassau County Supreme Court Justice Hon. Kenneth A. Davis. The settlement, which also named the South Farmingdale Water District as a respondent, stipulates that "the district agrees it will not profile any commissioner up for election in its newsletter for a 60-day period prior to the district's annual election."

Counsel to the SFWD, Gregory Carman of Carman Callahan & Ingham, LLP in Farmingdale said, "with respect to the newsletter, the commissioners feel that the newsletter is an important and professional tool and should include information about policy and elected individuals who represent the district."

"The district is very enthusiastic about the quality and level of service it provides its residents and the credentials of those who serve as commissioners in the district," he added.

The settlement continues on to state "respondents do not admit any wrongdoing or legal liability. However, the respondents have entered this stipulation to resolve a dispute between the parties."

Carman said the commissioners agreed to settle because "They recognize that lawsuits are expensive and while there is no admission of any wrongdoing, the commissioners decided to settle the matter to avoid costly litigation."

Heller, during his campaign for commissioner, stated, "This is exactly the kind of waste and abuse that caused me to run this race in the first place. This special district believes that they can spend our taxpayer dollars however they please to satisfy their own interests. My opponent has allowed the taxpayer to pay for a campaign ad on his behalf. What makes this act even more blatant is that the water district normally issues two newsletters in a calendar year. This year they sent one out in spring 2007 and in October 2007 they sent out a fall edition. This newsletter is an extra edition, clearly done to attempt to re-elect my opponent."

While Heller said it is difficult to know if the newsletter had any effect on the election's results, he added, "it was like sending out a piece of campaign literature. This was an extra publication that they sent out and they did it. I believe, that was because it was a contested election going on and they wanted to make sure they kept their position in the water district."

Farmingdale resident John Capobianco, who wrote a letter to the editor in the Dec. 7 issue of the Farmingdale Observer, stated the recent SFWD newsletter "looked more like a piece of four-color campaign literature."

"You see this kind of four-color glossy self-promotion, under the guise of informational newsletters, all the time," he later told the Observer. "Unless each and every one of these instances is challenged, discussed and put in to the public sphere it will continue. The other reason I'm not overly thrilled with the settlement is that they are only paying back $1,000. How much did it really cost to produce and mail that newsletter?"

The total amount paid back by the water commissioners was $999.99, however the cost of the December newsletter is unknown.

According to Carman, the money has already been repaid to the district at the commissioners' expense.