‘Taxpayer Transparency Act’ Stalls in County Legislature

By Holly Crocco

With the Putnam County Legislature failing to approve the addition of a “taxpayer transparency” chapter to the county code during a committee meeting in April, one last attempt was made at the Legislature’s May 5 meeting to move the matter forward.

Proposed by Legislator Laura Russo, R-Patterson, earlier this year, the Taxpayer Transparency Act would formalize many actions that are already taking place. It would require the commissioner of finance to maintain a public budget database, require the county executive to hold at least one public hearing on the proposed tentative budget each year, require the Legislature and county executive to live-stream meetings and public hearings, and post meetings to a video archive for future viewing.

The approval was narrowly defeated – by one vote – during an April meeting that Legislator Erin Crowley, R-Carmel, was unable to attend due to a death in the family. However, she said that had she been able to vote that night, she would have voted in favor of it, meaning it would have passed.

During the Legislature’s May 5 meeting, Crowley, moved to add the item to the agenda for another vote.

“I feel like it would be unacceptable that some of my colleagues would be refusing to entertain this again, because it’s effectively silencing both me and the constituents I was elected to represent,” she said. “This legislation is about transparency, accountability, and public access – core responsibilities of this body.”

Legislator Tommy Regan, R-Southeast, said that before the county codifies livestreaming, it needs to provide quality video and audio for residents who are tuning in.

“I have received complaint, complaint, complaint,” he said. “‘No audio.’ ‘I can’t hear you.’ ‘It’s not on…’ If we just codify the word ‘livestreaming,’ that’s akin to me telling you you’re going to eat today” – it doesn’t differentiate between McDonald’s and a steakhouse. “To say we’re going to livestream without defining what that means, I find to be very hollow and empty and it’s just a headline-grabbing proposition.”

Legislator Amy Sayegh, R-Mahopac Falls, said the county is already doing much of what is included in the resolution.

“We do have a budget database that is managed by the commissioner, we do have livestreaming – we currently have everything,” she said. “I don’t understand why it has to be codified. I do understand for future generations, possibly.”

Further, she said the matter should not be resurrected for another vote.

“I voted the way I voted for a reason,” said Sayegh. “I’m not wanting to revisit this. There are times when I cannot attend a meeting, my vote isn’t counted, and I don’t ask you all to revisit an issue so I can cast my vote… We’ve discussed this over and over again, we gave it a lot of time at the Rules Committee.”

Legislator Jake D’Angelo, R-Carmel, agreed that the county needs to provide a better streaming service for residents who can’t make it out to meetings, even suggesting at one point that the county put out a request for bids out to get an entirely new system.

“It’s awful,” he said of the current system. “It’s pretty pathetic, quite honestly, when you compare it townships in our county who do it lightyears better than us and, frankly, with a lot less money in the bank that we do… Any penny toward public accessibly and transparency is a worthy expenditure, in my eyes.”

Further, D’Angelo supported sending the resolution back to committee for further discussion, if the body couldn’t agree on it.

“I get we already do these functions… but to protect the future of the institution, how we do that would be codifying it into law,” he said.

Russo said there have been multiple amendments to the document to appease her colleagues.

“All we have to do is put it all together and come together, but work toward making a better system,” she said. “All I’m asking is that we codify what we do. We do livestreaming – we do this. But it’s not codified into law… I agree our system doesn’t work, but we as nine people can’t come to an agreement that transparency matters for our constituents.”

Legislator Nancy Montgomery, D-Philipstown, called the resolution a “vanity proposal.”

“This isn’t about whether information is shared,” she said. “I’m codified. I took an oath of office to do this… This act is about a lot more than livestreaming. We’re talking about a heck of a lot more in this bill and it involves information sharing and none of it specifies who controls how that information is shared. So what we’re doing is creating transparency that’s filtered through one branch of government, it’s curated by one branch of government, and it diminishes our role as a Legislature.

Legislature Chairman Dan Birmingham, R-Brewster, said the county has come a long way when it comes to livestreaming, despite technical challenges.

“I’ve long been on record for transparency,” he said. “I do think this is worth more committee debate and discussion.”

Legislator Toni Addonizio, R-Kent, said the matter doesn’t need to be codified. “We are doing it,” she said. “We are livestreaming. Yes, we can do better, But we are doing it.”

The act was not voted on during the May 5 meeting.

County Executive Kevin Byrne also weighed in on the matter, saying that audio-only recordings of meetings are inadequate and limit public access, and livestreaming should be mandatory.

“It’s important we think about residents with disabilities who can’t attend in person, seniors and others who are hearing impaired and rely on video and captions, parents who can’t secure childcare, and nurses, police officers, firefighters, and many others whose jobs require evening shifts,” he said. “Transparent government means making participation accessible to everyone… not just those who can be in the room.”