Putnam County Legislature appoints outside counsel amid dispute over court stay and retaliation claims

The Putnam County Legislature voted on Dec. 10 to appoint outside counsel to represent the legislature in litigation brought by the county executive, amid a contentious debate over whether the move conflicts with an existing court stay.

The chair moved to amend the draft resolution to replace the originally named law firm with a different municipal litigation firm led by attorney Dan Hollis; the amendment was seconded and approved by roll call. Supporters argued the legislature has the charter authority to select independent counsel for a specific case. “We now have a suit that we want to hire outside counsel for, which we should have every right to,” the chair said during debate.

Why it matters: supporters said the county attorney has not engaged with the legislature since May and that appointing independent counsel is necessary so legislators have representation distinct from the county executive’s office. Opponents warned that taking action could violate a judicial stay stemming from prior litigation and risk contempt. One legislator said during debate, “You’re violating a court order,” expressing concern that the vote could run afoul of the court’s directive.

What was disputed: Several legislators argued the matter before the court is tied to a prior resolution (No. 216 was referenced in the meeting) and a stay was said to have been issued in October; other members and counsel contested that the current resolution concerns a separate litigation matter and cited charter authority (charter §2.04) as the basis for appointing counsel for a specific instance.

Votes at a glance: - Motion to amend the resolution to replace the named firm with the firm including Dan Hollis — Passed by roll call (individual responses recorded during roll call; motion announced carried). Recorded votes in the transcript include affirmative votes from several legislators and at least one recorded 'No' and multiple abstentions; the chair announced the amendment carried. - Motion to approve appointment of outside counsel for the legislature (as amended) — Passed by roll call; the chair announced the motion carried after recorded votes, including at least one abstention.

Details and timeline: Counsel told legislators that response papers in the pending court matter are due Dec. 16 but said retained counsel could seek additional time from the court. Several members stressed urgency because of that deadline; others stressed the need to ensure compliance with any court orders before proceeding.

Allegations and context: During debate, legislators accused the county executive of initiating litigation in retaliation for charter changes and raised an ethics complaint and a prior property/transaction matter they said was not brought to the legislature. Supporters characterized the county attorney’s handling as derelict and said the legislature lacked fair representation.

Next steps: The legislature authorized outside counsel to be retained for the case discussed; the transcript indicates counsel can contact the court about timing. No further procedural schedule was set in the meeting minutes recorded here.

Ending note: After votes on the counsel appointments, the legislature moved to adjourn and closed the special meeting.