GovernmentThe Putnam Examiner

Byrne Vetoes Legislature Amendment on County Attorney

News Based on facts, either observed and verified directly by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.

We are part of The Trust Project

Putnam County Executive Kevin Byrne last week vetoed a recently approved amendment to the county charter by the Legislature that would have given legislators the ability to fire the county attorney without the support of the county executive.

During a livestream public hearing on YouTube Oct. 23, Byrne criticized an Oct. 1 6-3 vote by the Legislature, contending by passing the law legislators were “attempting the usurp the authority of the county executive and strike a blow against the Putnam County attorney.”

“I believe this proposed local law is fatally flawed for a number of reasons,” Byrne stated. “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.”

Putnam County Executive Kevin Byrne

The proposed law was first publicly discussed at an Aug. 26 meeting of the Rules Committee. It stemmed from a complaint submitted by County Attorney Compton Spain to the Board of Ethics against Legislator Toni Addonizio (R/Patterson) for not disclosing her alleged involvement in the sale of property owned by the county to her son-in-law. Addonizio’s daughter was the seller’s real estate agent.

The potential conflict was not publicly revealed until it came up at a May 16 Rules Committee meeting.

Besides having the ability to remove the county attorney by a two-thirds vote, the amendment stated the county attorney “shall not engage in any private practice nor be employed by any private law firm or other government entity in his or her field of expertise of employment.”

“What is vitally important to understand is that the genesis of this legislation is the desire to harm, marginalize and weaken the county attorney, the Law Department, and the authority of the county executive,” Byrne stated. “In an effort to disguise the true intent of this law, the members of the Legislature who passed this law changed the effective date to January 1, 2027, and have made this law ‘not applicable to the county attorney serving at the time this law takes effect.’ It is my belief that the reasons the Legislature is railroading this through now is retaliation, and because they fear the potential result that may come from the Board of Ethics, and that they also fear this year’s election results could prevent them from overriding a veto in the future.”

“All of which are horrible reasons to push through such a significant change to checks and balances in our charter,” Byrne added.

Voting for the amendment on Oct. 1 were Chairman Paul Jonke (R/Brewster) and legislators Joseph Castellano (R/Brewster), Greg Ellner (R/Carmel), Amy Sayegh (R/Mahopac), Ginny Nacerino (R/Patterson) and Addonizio, who had recused herself from previous votes and many prior discussions on the matter.

“Nothing changes for the county executive. We’re not changing any of his authority,” Jonke said at the meeting. “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.”

“We are an equal branch of government,” Nacerino said. “And that’s all it was about from the beginning. To give the Legislature a voice that it deserves. It was not because anyone was retaliating. If it was retaliation, then this present employee would be exempt.”

Legislators Nancy Montgomery (D/Philipstown), Erin Crowley (R/Mahopac) and Bill Gouldman (R/Putnam Valley) strongly opposed the measure.

“It’s a power grab,” Montgomery remarked.

“This personal and political,” Crowley charged. “This 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.”

Gouldman added, “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.”

 

 

We'd love for you to support our work by joining as a free, partial access subscriber, or by registering as a full access member. Members get full access to all of our content, and receive a variety of bonus perks like free show tickets. Learn more here.