Opposition Heard For Charter Change

By Holly Crocco

A number of lawmakers and residents voiced their opinions during a Jan. 15 public hearing on a charter change that was approved by the Putnam County Legislature in December that would allow the Legislature to hire independent counsel for both its majority and minority parties.

The matter was before County Executive Kevin Byrne to either be signed into law or vetoed and sent back to the Legislature to be refined. (Due to anticipated inclement weather, this week’s newspaper was printed early, so at the time of distribution that decision may have already been made.)

During the public hearing held in the county executive’s office, Nicholas Fannin of Carmel voiced opposition to the measure.

“Our county has long functioned effectively with a single legislative attorney,” he said. “Expanding it to multiple positions and especially codifying the allocation of those positions based upon political party risks creating unnecessary duplication, an added expense to the taxpayers, and a greater division within a body that should be united in serving all constituents regardless of party lines.”

Rather, Fannin said the Legislature should be working together, negotiating in good faith, and representing the interests of all families regardless of political party.

Legislator Erin Crowley, R-Mahopac, urged County Executive Kevin Byrne to veto the law, calling it unnecessary, costly, and divisive.

“I do believe the Legislature should have access to individual legal counsel… but that counsel should represent the institution, not political parties,” she said.

Legislator Nancy Montgomery, D-Philipstown, who championed the law, said it provides a clear separation of power.

“This law gives the Legislature the tools it needs to do its work effectively regardless of who holds power at any given moment,” she said. “It codifies independent counsel for the lawmakers of Putnam County… Our legislative counsel is exempt from the authority of the county attorney.”

Further, Montgomery said the funding for legislative counsel was already approved by the Legislature, with $150,000 being put into subcontingency for the positions.

Legislator Jake D’Angelo, R-Carmel, who took office mere hours after the law was passed by the Legislature, urged Byrne to veto it, saying it was rushed through during a special meeting that was “hastily scheduled.”

“The positions created are parliamentary and advisory in nature, advising on procedure, drafting laws, and research – functions that are inherently nonpartisan,” he said. “Creating a party-specific legal advisory role for these functions serves no legitimate governmental purpose and risks institutionalizing division in a body that is obligated to govern collaboratively.”

Legislator Laura Russo, R-Patterson, also urged Byrne to veto the law, agreeing that it was rushed through the lawmaking process and discussed during special meetings called during the holiday and end-of-the-year season, when several lawmakers had scheduling conflicts.

“I cannot justify spending county tax dollars on a duplicate role,” she said. “I have the utmost confidence we will continue to be well served by our current legislative counsel.”

In written comment submitted to the county executive, Lynne Eckardt of Southeast also supported a veto of the new law.

Eckardt, a Democrat, served on the town board for eight years and is now a member of the planning board.

“I was the minority party on the Southeast Town Board for two terms and not once did I find that I needed counsel,” she wrote. “I always assumed the attorney was there to protect the town… Even as a minority party, I believe the town attorney accomplished this.”

Eckardt also noted that the Legislature has grown substantially in recent years.

“Legisaltors have voted themselves repeated pay increases that now bring compensation to nearly $50,000 a year for a part-time job,” she wrote. “At the same time, this body is asking taxpayers to fund another layer of legal staff.”

Legislator Bill Gouldman, R-Putnam Valley, also wrote a letter in opposition to the law.

“I understand how important it is to have a lawyer for the Legislature,” he wrote. “But to have two lawyers – one for the majority and one for the minority – is not appropriate” and puts added financial burden on taxpayers.

“Additionally, I believe two separate counsels will divide the Legislature more than it is now,” he wrote. “This Legislature should be run as a unified body… to help all residents of Putnam County regardless of party.”

Byrne echoed the concerns about process and procedure, and also pointed out that those who claim that allowing the Legislature to hire independent counsel as a way to maintain checks and balances are forgetting that the same courtesy is not extended to the executive branch of government in Putnam.

“To be clear, I have no objection to the Legislature modifying the charter to have its own independent counsel that it can hire and fire at will,” he said. “I do find it concerning that the same access to legal services is not afforded to the county executive, and this is primarily due to the fact that in Putnam County, legislative action is needed for the both the hiring and termination of the county attorney.”

He continued: “Should the Legislature approve a clean amendment providing itself independent counsel – one attorney for the Legislature – I would gladly sign it.”