By Holly Crocco
The Putnam County Legislature voted to override the county executive’s veto of a local law it passed in October, effectively ending the back-and-forth volley between the two branches of government and changing the county charter to give the Legislature the authority to fire the county attorney without the approval of the administration.
The law it set to go into effect in January 2027, after the county attorney’s current term expires.
Lawmakers have been split on the legislation since the initial resolution was presented in August, after county attorney Compton Spain filed a complaint with the county’s ethics board, alleging that Legislator Toni Addonizio, R-Patterson, violated the ethics code in 2022 by not disclosing interest in the proposed sale of a county property to her son-in-law, with her daughter serving as the seller’s broker.
Legislator Bill Gouldman, R-Putnam Valley, said the law changes the balance of power in county – undermining the authority of the county executive and weakening the law department.
“This local law would allow the County Legislature to remove the county attorney for any reason, or for no reason,” he said at the Legislature’s Nov. 25 meeting at the county office building in Carmel. “Under the current system, we have checks and balances with the Legislature and the executive branch.”
Gouldman also asked why the governing body is passing a law that won’t go into effect for more than two years. “Why did we rush this through?” he asked. “Why are we doing it now?”
Legislator Erin Crowley, R-Mahopac, further asked: “Why are we making local laws for a future body that half of us may not even be here for?”
Fellow Legislator Nancy Montgomery, D-Philipstown, added that the issue was mixed in with budget deliberations.
Legislator Amy Sayegh, R-Mahopac Falls, noted that all laws passed affect future governing bodies. “I think the Legislature should have the actual ability to vet or decide on their counsel.”
“Anything we do can always be undone by a future Legislature, as well,” added Legislator Joseph Castellano, R-Southeast.
Legislator Greg Ellner, R-Carmel, said the law “in no way, shape, or form diminishes the authority of the county executive. What this does is add authority to the County Legisaltrue,” he said.
Legislator Ginny Nacerino, R-Patterson, said County Executive Kevin Byrne’s veto message – in which he accuses the Legislature of retaliating against the county attorney for filing a complaint against a sitting legislator – is based on conjecture and speculation. Further, she said it’s insulting to imply legislators would act in a nefarious way and just arbitrarily remove the county attorney at will.
Legislator Paul Jonke, R-Brewster, said the move does not eliminate or take away any authority from the county executive, but rather gives the Legislature more authority.
“We are the legislative branch of this government in Putnam County,” he said. “We should have the right to hire and fire the county attorney. We’re not asking to hire or fire any other department head. He works directly for us, as he does for the county, and he defaults to us in the event of a conflict with the county executive.”
The motion to override the county executive’s veto, and approve the local law, passed 6-3, with Legislators Addonizio, Castellano, Ellner, Nacerino, Sayegh and Jonke voting “yes;” and Legislators Crowley, Montgomery and Gouldman voting “no.”
The Legislature then voted to override another veto by the county executive, and move forward with a local law to allow the Legislature to appoint its own outside counsel.
Again, Gouldman called this law “flawed in many ways.” He noted that the Legislature recently only approved $10,000 for the ethics board in its budget, to hire outside counsel, when it had asked for $25,000.
“We limited the ethics board but we’re allowing the legislative counsel, with no oversight, to spend whatever they want,” said Gouldman.
Ellner pointed out that the Legislature could have denied any funding for outside counsel for the ethics board, but instead agreed to put $10,000 in that line.
Nacerino said that, currently, if the Legislature needs to hire outside counsel because there is a conflict with the county attorney, it is the county attorney who appoints that person – which she said is ludicrous.
“The crux of the problem is that this whole debacle has not been created by the Legislature, and now it’s hard for us to feel that the county attorney can be objective in his selection of an attorney,” she said. “It’s a conflict of interest for him to appoint who should represent us and who shouldn’t, when he’s the reason we need outside counsel, because of the complaint that was filed by him.”
Sayegh agreed.
“If there’s a conflict with the county attorney, we should have unobstructed representation,” she said. “The whole purpose that we’re looking for outside counsel is because there’s a possible conflict.”
Sayegh also noted that the county has always hired outside counsel to help the law department with different matters, whether it’s a conflict of interest or simply due to staffing.
Crowley noted the irony of lawmakers being insulted by the idea that they are retaliating against the county attorney, and yet saying they have a problem with him and want outside counsel.
“Don’t you think that’s reflective of what we just passed?” she said, referring to the first vote of the night. “You don’t think that comes across as being retaliatory? I do… All these things that are being done are because of something that was filed.”
The vote to override the county executive’s veto and allow the Legislature to hire outside counsel was approved 6-3, with lawmakers voting the same as they did for the first vote.
Comments