Legislature Votes Down Independent Counsel Position

By Rob Sample

The Putnam County Legislature again wrestled with the fractious issue of hiring independent legal counsel for the governing body during its April 8 meeting, ultimately failing to achieve the six votes needed to make it law.

Legislative counsel is employed through a contract the Legislature has for legal services under the County Attorney’s Office. While the Legislature has typically had its own outside counsel, that contract was not renewed in 2024.

At that time, the county attorney appointed a deputy county attorney to serve as counsel to the Legislature. However, legislators say their branch of government needs to have counsel separate from and not dependent upon the approval and resources of the executive branch, to maintain checks and balances.

In an about face, Legislator Jake D’Angelo, R-Carmel, who introduced the resolution in its original form, voted against it at the April 8 meeting – after it was amended.

Legislator Amy Sayegh, R-Mahopac Falls, noted that as originally introduced, the resolution would create a new counsel position but didn’t make clear its independence from the county’s own attorney or the county executive.

“This Legislature must have its own independent counsel… period,” she said. “We cannot do our job, protect this institution, or provide real oversight if our legal advice and representation are dependent on the county executive or the executive branch or department head selected by the county executive. This is not novel, radical, or even optional.”

Sayegh also traced the rather complicated history of the legislative counsel’s role, pointing to the selection of an individual in late 2021 for a role that ran through 2022, 2023, and 2024. In December 2024, legislators approved a one-year extension of that role and voted to amend the county attorney’s charter.

This vote, she said, was then countermanded by the county attorney.

“We were hit then with a lawsuit from the county executive, and we were told to accept counsel assigned to us,” said Sayegh.

The lawsuit came after an ethics complaint filed by County Attorney Compton Spain, accusing Legislator Toni Addonizio, R-Kent, of failing to disclose that the person seeking to buy a county-owned property was her son-in-law. The Legislature then voted 6-3 to pass a charter amendment that would allow it to fire the county attorney, which County Executive Kevin Byrne alleged was in retaliation.

Four later amendments – three introduced by Legislator Nancy Montgomery, D-Philipstown, and a fourth by Addonizio – clarified the role’s necessary independence.

Montgomery said she introduced the amendments to provide an affirmative statement that the proposed legislative counsel would be independent of both the county attorney and the county executive.

“My amendments, and what I’ve been trying to preserve, is exactly what closes those gaps in Legislator D’Angelo’s proposal,” she said.

Legislator Laura Russo, R-Patterson, said hiring additional counsel is unnecessary.

“Back when we had the budget process, I approved the money in the budget for outside legal counsel,” she said. “But my point and my oath that I’ve taken for the residents of Putnam County – including my town, Patterson – is to properly spend taxpayer dollars. And I feel, as everybody on this Legislature has said many times, our legal counsel – provided by Putnam County residents’ taxpaying dollars – has been superb.”

Russo said she was unclear on how the county might handle legal representation for the county executive, to which Chairman Dan Birmingham, R-Southeast, responded that in the event of a conflict between the Legislature and the county executive, the county charter does afford the executive with county-paid outside counsel.

“This doesn’t change that,” he said.

Legislator Thomas Regan, R-Brewster, called on D’Angelo to cast an affirmative vote.

“A negative vote will prolong this discussion” he said. “This is not exactly the proposal that perhaps you wanted or even myself… but I do look for you to support this initiative tonight so we can move on from discussion of this topic and get to the business of the people.”

D’Angelo responded that he opposed the resolution because, with the amendments, it sets up a mechanism for the county to proliferate spending on multiple attorneys – which goes counter to what he had originally sought.

“The county executive has a county-funded counsel that he can then retain,” said D’Angelo. “So, we have the county attorney, legislative counsel, and now the county executive can spend money and get counsel for himself. We’re just spending and spending and there’s no answer… This is an incomplete bill (and) the charter change and the ramifications of it made this incomplete. I don’t like to vote on things that don’t have answers. This is just shortsighted.”

Legislator William Gouldman, R-Putnam Valley, said he agreed in principle with the need for an independent legal counsel and had introduced measures in support of that in the past. He later was told that such a change required the county to convene a charter review commission which, he said, nobody on the Legislature seemed to want.

Birmingham interjected that such commissions can only be convened every 10 years, with the last one taking place in 2021.

Gouldman further said such a commission would help the Legislature make the decision on the counsel measure. “Or we can go back to the original proposal that we all put together two months ago, without any amendments,” he said. “So, I’ll be abstaining for that reason.”

The final vote had Montgomery, Regan, Sayegh, and Birmingham supporting the resolution, with D’Angelo and Russo voting against it.

Addonizio and Legislator Erin Crowley, R-Mahopac, were absent from the meeting.