The Village of Lawrence is facing a legal challenge over a recently adopted law extending the terms of the mayor and village trustees from two years to four years, with longtime resident and community activist Paris Popack arguing the measure was enacted in violation of New York State law.
Popack filed an Order to Show Cause in Nassau County Supreme Court seeking to invalidate Local Law No. 6, adopted by the Village Board on May 14. She contends the law improperly applies to the June 16 village election because state law requires a 30-day waiting period before such a measure can take effect, giving residents time to petition for a permissive referendum.
“For as long as most people in Lawrence can remember, the Mayor and the Trustees have served two-year terms,” Popack wrote in a statement. “Every two years, voters get to look at how things are going and make a simple choice: keep these leaders or pick new ones. That short, regular check is one of the most powerful tools a community has.”
Popack argues the village’s timeline violated state law because the measure could not legally take effect until June 13, just three days before the election.
“I say, ‘Not so fast,’” she wrote. “The law here is clear: the four-year change is invalid, and it cannot stand.”
She added that the lawsuit is not politically motivated.
“This is not about who won or lost, or about any one person,” Popack wrote. “It is about a simple insult: the idea that the people of Lawrence were tricked.”
Popack said if village officials believe four-year terms are beneficial, residents should be allowed to decide.
“If the Village believes four-year terms are a good idea, it should make that case to us residents in the open, the way the law lays out, with real notice, real time, and a real chance for residents to weigh in or vote,” she wrote.
Village officials rejected Popack’s claims, saying the amendment was properly adopted and will improve continuity in local government.
“We were surprised to learn of this lawsuit, while at the same time not surprised by who chose to bring it,” Mayor Samuel Nahmias wrote in a statement. “We believe the claims are without merit, and we are confident that the Village of Lawrence will prevail.”
Nahmias said the law was adopted after public hearings and legal notice was published in the Long Island Herald, giving residents an opportunity to comment before the vote. He noted that Popack did not attend the meetings where the proposal was considered.
According to Nahmias, the amendment does not increase the amount of time officials may serve.
“The amendment does not extend the maximum amount of time an individual may serve,” he wrote. “Elected officials remain subject to an eight-year term limit. The only change was replacing four two-year terms with two four-year terms.”
Nahmias said the longer terms will allow the village to better recruit and retain employees, undertake long-term infrastructure projects and reduce the costs associated with conducting elections every two years.
“Every decision my administration makes is guided by one simple principle: protecting every taxpayer dollar and ensuring those dollars are spent wisely,” he wrote.
Deputy Mayor Aaron Felder and Trustee Steven Gottesman echoed the mayor’s comments, saying they were disappointed by the legal action.
“We were shocked and surprised by the lawsuit—but, once we learned who filed it, we weren’t surprised by the timing,” they wrote in a joint statement. “Filing it on Election Day seems designed to generate headlines, not solutions.”
The officials also cited voter participation in the June election.
“The voters have clearly spoken,” Nahmias, Felder and Trustee Steven Gottesman wrote. “This election produced the highest turnout of any uncontested Village election in Lawrence’s history for the mayor and trustees—more than double the turnout of any previous uncontested election.”
Portions of the full Village of Lawrence Statement are in this article. The full statement is below:
We were surprised to learn of this lawsuit, while at the same time not surprised by who chose to bring it. We believe the claims are without merit, and we are confident that the Village of Lawrence will prevail.
Since taking office, my administration has worked tirelessly to restore the Village's financial health after years of fiscal challenges. When I became Mayor, the Village faced a significant budget deficit that ultimately burdened our taxpayers. Our focus has been on responsible financial management, improving infrastructure, enhancing public safety, and ensuring that every taxpayer dollar is spent wisely.
Unfortunately, this lawsuit from Ms. Popack represents yet another unnecessary expense that will require the Village to devote taxpayer resources to defending a challenge we believe lacks legal merit. It follows numerous FOIL requests by Ms. Popack and other actions over the past two years that have similarly required the expenditure of Village time and resources. Ironically, while claiming to act in the public interest, this litigation will require taxpayers to bear the cost of defending a law that was properly enacted.
The amendment extending elected terms from two years to four years was adopted for several important reasons, all of which were intended to benefit the residents of Lawrence. The amendment does **not** extend the maximum amount of time an individual may serve. Elected officials remain subject to an eight-year term limit. The only change was replacing four two-year terms with two four-year terms.
The amendment was adopted in full compliance with New York law and the Village's legal procedures. Notice of the proposed local law was properly published in the Long Island Herald before its adoption, giving residents ample opportunity to review and comment. Public hearings and Board meetings were held before the law was enacted. Despite now challenging the amendment, Ms. Popack did not attend either of those meetings to voice any objection or opposition.
Mayor Nahmias, Deputy Mayor Felder and Trustee Gottesman stated "that this election produced the highest turnout of any uncontested Village election in Lawrence's history for the Mayor and Trustees—more than double the turnout of any previous uncontested election, with an average of 800 votes. The voters have clearly spoken. While reasonable people can disagree, it is disappointing that Ms. Popack has chosen to disregard the will expressed by the residents of Lawrence and instead require taxpayers to fund yet another legal challenge."
This change was made to promote continuity of government. Stable leadership allows the Village to recruit and retain qualified employees, undertake long-term planning, and responsibly manage major infrastructure and capital improvement projects. Our employees are tremendously valued, and many expressed concerns about the uncertainty that came with elections every two years. In fact, some employees indicated they would seek employment elsewhere if the Village could not provide greater stability.
Because the Village cannot legally enter into employment contracts that extend beyond the term of the sitting Board, the previous two-year election cycle limited our ability to provide longer-term certainty for key employees. The four-year terms provide continuity while remaining fully consistent with the eight-year term limit approved by the Board.
The amendment also reflects our commitment to fiscal responsibility. By reducing the frequency of Village elections, the Village avoids the unnecessary expense of conducting elections every year, saving taxpayer dollars over time. Every decision my administration makes is guided by one simple principle: protecting every taxpayer dollar and ensuring those dollars are spent wisely. This amendment advances that goal by reducing election costs while providing greater stability for Village government.
It is also worth noting that when a previous administration extended the Mayor's term, there was no legal challenge. In fact, before this litigation was filed, I personally discussed the concept of four-year terms with Ms. Popack, and she expressed agreement that two four-year terms made more sense than four two-year terms.
My administration has deliberately chosen to focus on moving Lawrence forward rather than dwelling on the past. Nevertheless, the record reflects that before my administration took office, approximately $1.4 million in projects spearheaded and approved by Ms. Popack were awarded without competitive bidding. Those expenditures contributed to the financial challenges we inherited.
One example involved the construction of a restaurant at the Lawrence Yacht & Country Club, where hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars were spent. When significant issues later arose, including sprinkler head failures due to a lack of insulation, this past winter, I requested the architectural plans and mechanical engineering and plumbing plans for the project. I was informed that no such plans existed. Despite that, Village funds had been paid to an individual who had been represented to the Board by Ms. Popack as having architectural experience. It turned out that the person the Village paid was not an architect, nor did they have the requisite credentials, insurance or experience that were necessary for the job. The payment vouchers for that work were approved by Ms. Popack.
Rather than spending my time relitigating decisions of prior administrations, I chose to focus on restoring the Village's finances, improving services, investing in infrastructure, and making Lawrence a stronger community. Today, the Village's financial condition is substantially healthier because we have remained disciplined in protecting taxpayer dollars and making responsible decisions.
We will vigorously defend this lawsuit and remain confident that the Village acted lawfully and in the best interests of its residents. My administration will continue to focus on what matters most: fiscal responsibility, transparent government, continuity of leadership, and delivering results for the taxpayers of Lawrence.
Deputy Mayor Felder and Trustee Gottesman stated, "We were shocked and surprised by the lawsuit—but, once we learned who filed it, we weren’t surprised by the timing. Filing it on Election Day seems designed to generate headlines, not solutions.
What we find most difficult to understand is why someone who claims to care deeply about the Village of Lawrence would choose to force taxpayers to spend time and money defending a law that was properly adopted and overwhelmingly supported by the residents it serves. Has she not cost the village taxpayers enough already through her mismanagement of taxpayer funds during the administration she served in?
We remain confident the Village acted lawfully, and we look forward to the courts confirming that and upholding the will of the residents of Lawrence, which was on full display, during our most recent election.”
Aaron Felder; Deputy Mayor
Steven Gottesman; Trustee
