By Holly Crocco
Putnam County legislators approved a charger change during their Oct. 2 meeting that essentially allows the Legislature to fire the county attorney with a two-thirds vote, without the approval of the county executive.
Under the proposal, the county executive may also seek the county attorney’s removal – but with the support of a majority vote by the Legislature.
The timing of the request garnered criticism from some legislators during prior discussions, 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.
Those opposed to the charter change called it retaliatory and said it offsets checks and balances in county government.
“While some of my colleagues may think they’re avoiding a conflict by changing the proposal to seemingly exclude our current county attorney, it doesn’t erase the intent or history behind this very proposal,” said Legislator Erin Crowley, R-Mahopac. “This is personal and political.”
After dissent was expressed by some legislators at prior Rules Committee meetings, Crowley said amendments were “haphazardly pushed through … But those changes still didn’t address the other flaws that should have been fixed before this proposal was even discussed.
“The proposal continues to miss the fact that it curtails the county executive’s authority, which he or she can remove a public officer, including the county attorney,” said Crowley. “It’s presently a power solely provided to the county executive. This changes that and extends the authority to the County Legislature – all while the Legislature already has the power to terminate the county attorney if and when he violates the charter or lawful resolutions.”
The county executive is the one who appoints the county attorney, and the Legislature must approve the appointment with a majority vote.
The charter already states that, in the event of a conflict between the legislative and executive branches of government, the county attorney will default to being the representative of the Legislature.
Legislator Nancy Montgomery, D-Philipstown, said the governing body is wasting its time on a “power grab.”
“The county executive is surely going to veto this,” she said. “Are we sure we want to spend our time on this? Because what you’re doing is just a power grab … The county executive cannot proceed the way he needs to proceed if we continue to do this. If we deny him the ability to exercise all the powers granted to him as county executive, under the law. You’re just losing sight of the delicate balance of power.”
Further, Montgomery said the action impedes the county executive’s right to his own representation.
“You’re putting him in a position to appoint a new individual to the post in hopes that we, the Legislature, agree with his next choice,” she said. “And in the meantime the county attorney will feel pressure to continue to please the members of the Legislature.”
Legislator Paul Jonke, R-Brewster, said his colleagues were using the term “power grab” as a “tag line” to be contentious.
“Nothing changes for the county executive,” he said. “We’re not changing any of his authority. The county attorney works for us. We’re not a department … We are a branch of government. We have the right to confirm the county executive’s choice of county attorney. We should have the right to remove that person.”
Further, he said it was the county attorney who retaliated by making an ethics complaint against a sitting legislator.
“You want to talk about personal and political?” Jonke asked. “It was personal and political when the county attorney filed an ethics complaint against a member of this Legislature after he was, in his words, ‘summoned’ to a Rules Committee meeting.”
Legislator Ginny Nacerino, R-Patterson, agreed that the Legislature should have the right to choose its own attorney.
“We are an equal branch of government,” she said. “And that’s all it was about from the beginning. To give the Legislature a voice that it deserves. It has no effect on the present county attorney … This was brought to the forefront because it raised awareness of the situation. It was not because anyone was retaliating. If it was retaliation, then this present employee would not be exempt.”
Legislator Bill Gouldman, R-Putnam Valley, called the charter change a “bad law.”
“By passing this law, we will be changing the balance of power here in Putnam County,” he said. “Each branch has its own authority, and we must depend on each branch to make our government work. By passing this law we are chipping away at that authority of the executive branch. What’s next? … What powers are we going to go after next?”
The charter change was approved by a 6-3 vote, with Legislators Addonizio, Joseph Castellano, R-Brewster; Greg Ellner, R-Carmel; Nacerino; Amy Sayegh, R-Mahopac Falls; and Jonke voting yes.
댓글