By Holly Crocco
Putnam County Executive Kevin Byrne has vetoed a local law approved by the Legislature last month that changes the county’s charter to essentially allow the Legislature to fire the county attorney with a two-thirds vote, without the approval of the county executive.
“I believe this proposed law is fatally flawed for a number of reasons, therefore it is incumbent upon me to veto it,” Byrne said during a public hearing that is mandated by the county charter, for residents to be heard on the new local law before the executive either approves or vetoes it.
It was the first time the administrative branch has lived-streamed a hearing for residents to participate from home.
“This law is contrary to the plain meaning of the statutes that guide this county, the county charter, and New York State law,” continued Byrne. “By passing this law, the Legislature is attempting to usurp the authority of the county executive and strike a blow against the Putnam County attorney. This local law is the latest in a series of outrageous and legally flawed actions – the sole purpose of which are to injure and defame the current county attorney, disrupt the orderly functioning of the law department and, ultimately, to undermine the authority of the county executive.”
The timing of the passage of the new law garnered has criticism, since there’s a complaint pending with the Putnam County Board of Ethics, submitted by current County Attorney Compton Spain. He alleges that Legislator Toni Addonizio, R-Patterson, violated the county’s 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.
The proposed law was originally introduced at the Aug. 14 Rules Committee meeting this year, then moved to the Aug. 26 meeting. According Byrne, as it was continually re-presented to the committee, different versions of the law were drafted to “mask the true purpose and intent” of the legislation.
“The original version clearly shows the intent of certain legislators to seize control of the county attorney’s office from the executive branch, and impose their will upon the county attorney,” he said. “It is my belief they are doing this to retaliate against the current county attorney for reporting a sitting individual legislator’s conflicts of interest to the Board of Ethics.”
The latest version of the law – the one approved Oct. 1 – changed the language to exempt the current county attorney from being subject to it. However, Byrne says that “in no way” cures the procedural defects.
“If legislators truly believed this to be sound policy, they would have done so correctly, with the required mandatory referendum, and they would have proposed it last year, not amid deliberations over a $205 million county budget, and not before the Board of Ethics completes its important work,” he said.
Instead, Byrne said retaliation, fear of the result from the Board of Ethics investigation, and fear that this year’s election results could prevent them from overriding a veto in the future is what drove their actions.
The veto now goes back to the Legislature to either accept or to override, in which case the local law would be filed with the secretary of state. However, the county executive said he believes it could be challenged in court.
The Legislature has 30 days to act.
This is not the only veto being issued by the county executive, who – in a rare move – vetoed a resolution (216), which allows the appointment of outside counsel for the Legislature, despite the governing body having its own legislative counsel.
“The resolution presented is unlawful and is based upon the purported need to appoint outside counsel due to ‘actual or potential conflicts involving the law department and legislative counsel,’” wrote Byrne in his veto message.
He said county code authorizes the Legislature to approve procurement for legal counsel, which shall be approved by the chairperson of the Legislature and the county attorney. Resolution 216 attempts to circumvent the statutory requirements that the county attorney is required to approve such an appointment before it becomes effective.
It also allows legislators to pick any representation it chooses, according to Byrne.
“There are no identifiable provisions in the Putnam County Charter that allow the Legislature to ignore the statutes that mandate the county attorney’s appointment of counsel for the Legislature, nor are there provisions that allow the Legislature to appoint counsel based upon speculative, possible future conflicts,” he wrote.
Byrne said the county attorney is duty-bound to represent the Legislature when there is an actual conflict between that body and the executive branch of government, so there is no need for the resolution.
Comments