Michael D'Onofrio

The Journal News

NEW CITY - Police have monitored social media posts criticalof the Clarkstown police department — but what was done with the information remains unknown.

Kara Donahue, a Clarkstown police officer, said she monitored user's Facebook activity connected with a 2015 post that questioned the high costs of running the department.

Donahue testified during the third day of proceedings in the disciplinary hearing of Clarkstown Police Chief Michael Sullivan at Town Hall.

DAY 1: Surveillance, political intrigue probed in Sullivan hearing

DAY 2: Clarkstown: Sullivan denies gathering info on critics

VIDEO: Sullivan's Lawyer: Clarkstown Official Recorded Hearings

Under questioning from the town’s special prosecutor William Harrington, Donahue testified that the former director of the county's Special Intelligence Unit, Sgt. Stephen Cole-Hatchard, asked her to collect the information.

Donahue, a police officer assigned to the SIU, said she took screenshots of the publicly available post — which supported Supervisor George Hoehmann’s effort to reduce the department’s budget — as well as screenshots of all the users who liked and commented on the post.

Donahue emailed the screenshots to Cole-Hatchard, who never revealed to her what was done with the information.

“I don’t know what the purpose was," Donahue testified.

Donahue appeared uncomfortable and nervous during her testimony.

Speaking in a low voice and responding to questions with mostly one-word answers, Donahue also contradicted an affidavit Sullivan gave regarding the purpose of the monitoring.

Sullivan said in the affidavit that the monitoring was done see whether Donahue was “using the system correctly.” The affidavit went on to say that “she was told by the SIU coordinators that this was not the type of information that was pertinent to the SIU.”

However, Kara said that both those statements were false.

Under questioning from his attorney, Richard Glickel, Sullivan said he was not made aware of that social media monitoring until after he was suspended months later.

Regarding the contradictions in the affidavit, Sullivan said: “I based that knowledge on information I was given by Stephen Cole-Hatchard."

FIRST HEARINGS: What's next in Clarkstown Chief Sullivan's case?

CLARKSTOWN: Sullivan case costs at $240K so far

Cole-Hatchard has been subpoenaed to testify at the administrative hearings, but has failed to appear. The subpoena is legally binding, but enforcing it would require court proceedings that could span months.

The third day of testimony is part of the second round of disciplinary hearings against Sullivan, which focuses on 22 of the most significant charges against the chief. Those include insubordination, dereliction of duty, disobedience and incompetence.

Sullivan's testimony

Sullivan testified today that the Town Board and Hoehmann kept him in the dark about their push for an internal affairs investigation into Cole-Hatchard which ultimately led to Sullivan’s suspension.

Cole-Hatchard, who has since retired from the police department, was accused of communicating with a Journal News reporter about an internal affairs investigation of another officer.

Under questioning from his attorney, Sullivan testified that Hoehmann and the town board appeared unusually involved in the Cole-Hatchard case, and even instructed how Sullivan ought to conduct the internal affairs interview.

Leading up to the July 4, 2016 holiday weekend, Hoehmann and the board asked Sullivan to reassign Cole-Hatchard from the SIU.

Sullivan said he had his doubts about the reassignment.

“I was very concerned about the impact … of taking Stephen Cole-Hatchard out of the unit,” Sullivan said, which he also characterized as “unprofessional.”

Sullivan added: “I didn’t have any source or basis that (Cole-Hatchard) divulged any confidential information,” and the town board didn’t reveal to him further details.

Sullivan testified he investigated Cole-Hatchard as quickly as possible and reassigned him after the July 4th weekend.

Cole-Hatchard has claimed that his reassignment was politically motivated, and related to his questioning of an ex-officer’s political donations to a campaign fund that spent heavily to get Hoehmann elected supervisor in 2015.

Sullivan remains suspended with pay from his $270,000-a-year job.

Robert Ponzini, the hearing officer, oversaw the proceeding.

Ponzini has yet to render his recommendations to the Town Board regarding the charges covered in the first round of hearings, which wrapped up earlier this year.

The potential recommendations include exoneration, suspension without pay for up to 20 days, or termination.

The Town Board will ultimately vote to accept or reject Ponzini's recommendations regarding both sets of disciplinary charges.

Meanwhile, Sullivan recently announced he is running for supervisor. The Democrat is bidding to face Hoehmann, a Republican, in the November election for a two-year term as town leader.