By CRAIG FREILICH

POTSDAM – The village’s former code enforcement officer is threatening legal action, claiming he was fired because he did his job too well.

Village Administrator David Fenton confirms receiving a notice of claim concerning Timothy O’Brien of Potsdam, whose contract was not renewed as code enforcement officer in May after serving for a year.

The notice of claim accuses Mayor Steven Yurgartis and trustees Steven Warr, Eleanor Hopke and Ronald Tischler of firing O’Brien in an act of “retaliatory discharge” and “for doing his job.”

“O’Brien indicates that he was discriminated and retaliated against for bringing health and safety issues to the attention of the Mayor and the Village Board,” said the notice from attorney David Lenney, formerly of Potsdam and now practicing in Clifton Park.

The claim includes the charge that O’Brien was discriminated against for reporting “dangerous conditions” in buildings that included his own workplace, “and the workplace of other Public Employees including First Responders, Firefighters and Police Officers.”

O’Brien claims he was obligated to report such infractions as an officer of village government. The claim also said he was let go because of his “refusal to engage in ultra vires [acting beyond his legal authority] and otherwise illegal conduct, including the issuance of permits and certificates of occupancy when Claimant/Plaintiff was aware that the building or structure did not comply with the applicable Laws, Rules and Regulations,” the notice said.

Lenney also believes O’Brien was no longer under a one-year probationary period and could not be summarily let go since the year had expired the day before the village board took its action.

Since O’Brien began work on May 30, 2011, Lenney said the probationary period “ended at the latest on May 29, 2012.”

The village board acted to dismiss O’Brien this past May 30, “the first day of his second year of employment,” according to the notice.

“Other aspects of the case could be open to interpretation, but this one seems to be quite straightforward,” Lenney said. He said he believes that the one-year period clearly had expired and that O’Brien was entitled to different treatment under civil service law.

Lenney said that “a non-probationary employee has the right to be served with written charges, to answer those charges, to be represented and to have an impartial hearing officer determine the dispute.”

“Because of this timing, counsel might advise them to start a dialogue.”

“We’re researching it right now,” said Administrator Fenton.

“We think the process was timely. We’re checking with our attorney. We’ll address it after we hear back.”