Putnam County Legislature adopts new legislative manual after heated debate over oaths, subpoenas and confirmations

2091132 · January 7, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Putnam County Legislature approved a revised legislative manual that adds procedures for oaths, subpoenas and confirmation reviews after hours of debate, public letters and multiple amendment votes. Interim counsel flagged legal questions but recommended moving forward with adoption while researching potential issues.

Putnam County lawmakers voted to adopt a revised legislative manual on Jan. 6, 2025, after an extended debate over new provisions that would allow chairs to request oaths of speakers, codify subpoena authority and establish confirmation procedures for certain county appointments.

Supporters and opponents clashed over provisions labeled in the draft as proposed rules 31, 32 and 33, which would (respectively) allow chairs to request an oath or affirmation of truthfulness from speakers when the facts will be used in decision-making, establish a committee-level process for issuing legislative subpoenas, and set documentary and background-check requirements for some executive appointments. Interim legislative counsel Ron Westfall told the legislature that the draft raises legal questions that merit further research but said, "I believe it may be prudent to move forward with the adoption of the manual in its current form to give us opportunity to discuss potential legal issues and exposure to the county that could result from the amendments" (memo read into the record).

Opponents argued the oath provision would intimidate public commenters and chill participation. Resident Lynn Eckhart submitted a letter read into the record that said the oath policy "is incredibly, incredibly burdensome" and called rule 31 "the antithesis of open government." Several legislators urged tabling the item for committee review and more public input; one said the county attorney's memo advised the changes were not ready.

The meeting included multiple subsidiary motions and roll-call votes on amendments that would have removed or revised sections of the proposed manual, including proposals to remove the oath rule (rule 31), the subpoena rule (rule 32) and the confirmation procedures (rule 33), and an amendment to eliminate a new section specifying courtroom location and dais seating (section 5). Those amendment motions were debated at length and voted on individually; in the end the full manual as presented at the meeting was adopted by the legislature. Members also proposed and voted on several technical "housekeeping" changes during debate.

Supporters said the manual mostly codifies powers the legislature already holds under the county charter, including the ability to issue subpoenas and administer oaths. Legislator Birmingham, who introduced the manual revisions and cited other counties' manuals as models, said parts of the draft were adapted from Erie and Rockland counties to provide process and clarity. Detractors said the timing — presenting a lengthy set of changes at the organizational meeting without prior committee consideration — denied the public adequate opportunity to weigh in.

After hours of discussion and multiple recorded votes on amendments, the legislature approved the manual and then invited legislative counsel and the clerk to the dais for the transition. The record shows the body adopted the manual on the evening of Jan. 6, 2025; the manual will be used as the legislature's procedural guide going forward, subject to any future amendments the body may make following committee review.

Ending: The legislature's adoption closes the immediate question but several members said they expect to revisit parts of the manual in committee and to seek additional legal analysis. Interim counsel’s memo and multiple members’ requests for committee review create an expectation that at least some of the new provisions will be examined again before the body relies on them in high-stakes proceedings.