Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Amendment County Attorney topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Putnam County Legislature debates charter amendment on county attorney authority amid accusations of retaliation
Summary
Lawmakers spent much of the Oct. 1 meeting debating a proposed charter amendment to change the county attorney’s appointment/removal process and whether the legislature should hire outside counsel; opponents called the measure retaliatory while supporters said it preserves legislative oversight.
Putnam County lawmakers spent a substantial portion of their Oct. 1 meeting debating a proposed amendment to the county charter that would revise Article 8, Section 8.01, governing the county attorney’s role and the legislature’s authority over that office. The item (agenda 6k) prompted repeated accusations that the change is retaliatory and would shift the balance of power between the county executive and the legislature.
The proposal, introduced for local order consideration, drew objections from several legislators who said the amendment would curtail the county executive’s authority to appoint and remove the county attorney. One legislator argued the measure “fundamentally changes checks and balances and undermines the executive branch’s ability to administer departments,” calling it personal and political. Another said the charter change was “a power grab” that would make the position subject to legislative pressure.
Supporters countered that the legislature has the right to confirm the county executive’s county attorney appointee and to remove its own counsel if necessary. One proponent said that ‘‘the county attorney works for us’’ and that the legislature must be able to choose and, if warranted, remove counsel who serves the legislative body.
During debate, a motion was made to remove the charter amendment from the agenda. The motion was moved and seconded; the body conducted a roll call and the attempt to remove the item failed. Later in the discussion members moved to end debate (to “poll the question”); a roll call on that motion resulted in a majority voting to close debate and proceed (motion carries).
The related agenda item 6l — approval for the legislature to appoint outside counsel — was presented immediately afterward. Several legislators asked for greater detail about the scope, cost and justification for retaining outside counsel and suggested executive-session discussion if confidentiality or FOIL issues were involved. Supporters said choosing outside counsel was appropriate where there is a disagreement with county-appointed counsel; opponents questioned the timing given an upcoming $205 million county budget deliberation.
The legislature previously approved a $150,000 fund transfer to cover outstanding legal invoices (agenda 6j) earlier in the meeting. Several speakers tied that allocation to the current dispute, saying it made the question of who would represent the legislature particularly salient.
No final charter amendment adoption vote appears in the meeting record; the debate concluded with the body voting to proceed on related procedural motions and considering approval to seek outside counsel. The record shows close, at-times heated exchanges, with repeated references to prior committee minutes, earlier recusals, and news coverage characterizing the proposal as retaliatory.
What’s next: The transcript ends with discussion and procedural action; the record does not show an adopted charter amendment at this session. Additional committee review, public notice, or formal scheduling for a final vote may follow according to the legislature’s rules.
