PERU -- The Peru town supervisor says he was offered a monetary settlement to step down from his position.

Donald Covel stated at a recent meeting that he had been approached by town attorneys to consider what he termed a "substantial monetary settlement" from the town to end his often-rocky tenure as supervisor.

The issue came to light when Councilor Tom Powers questioned a bill from the Town Attorney's Office in which Councilor Cortland Forrence had discussed a settlement issue with attorneys.

Forrence suggested that Powers ask the attorneys about the bill, but Covel then stated that it was in reference to the settlement offer he had received.

Covel told the Press-Republican later that he did not want to say anything else about the issue, including how much the settlement was for, but he said he had never considered stepping down.

"The thing that has kept me going is the support I have received from this community," he said. "I've never done anything wrong, and I've only done what I thought was in the best interest of the town."

Town Attorney Donald Biggs, who was not at the most recent meeting, said he was not aware of any monetary settlement offer.

Covel had also made the claim during an end-of-year meeting in December 2007, when he read from a prepared statement in which he said he turned down an offer to receive full insurance for him and his wife if he stepped down.

LAWSUIT DISMISSED

Biggs did note that Essex County Supreme Court Judge James P. Dawson had dismissed Covel's lawsuit against Councilors Forrence, Powers and Peter Glushko, former Councilor Roger Bonner and former Town Attorney Dennis Curtin.

In 2007, the four men were served notice from Albany attorney Salvatore D. Ferlazzo that Covel had initiated a defamation lawsuit against them stemming from comments made during town business.

In the lawsuit, Covel contended that Forrence had made defamatory statements during an April 24, 2006, Town Council meeting and that all four men continued to defame Covel during an April 28, 2006, press conference.

The supervisor also cited a May 1, 2006, letter asking the Clinton County district attorney to investigate Covel's actions in office.

In a nine-page report, Dawson reviewed the case and determined that the defendants' statements were either based on opinion or were not considered defamatory as defined by the law.

Dawson then went on to dismiss each of Covel's four claims.