The Putnam County Legislature voted Dec. 3 to appoint outside counsel and to authorize outside counsel for a prospective litigation matter, siding with legislators who said the county charter gives the legislature the authority to select its own legal representation.

The action followed a sustained dispute with the county attorney’s office over who may approve contracts for outside counsel. Legislators repeatedly cited Putnam County Charter section 2.04 (powers and duties of the county legislature) and Putnam County Code §140-3.5 as the basis for their authority to appoint counsel. Chairman opened the meeting, moved to accept an amended resolution and a roll call later recorded multiple "Yes" votes; the clerk declared "Motion carries."

Why it matters: the vote sets the legislature’s chosen counsel as the body’s legal representative in upcoming matters and formalizes the legislature’s contention that its charter powers let it appoint counsel on a per-case basis. The dispute also carries fiscal implications: legislators raised the cost of legal work and whether recent hiring and RFP activity was handled transparently.

What supporters said: several legislators and former legislators praised the performance and availability of the legislature’s counsel and argued the legislature has long exercised this authority. Legislator Castellano said the outside counsel had saved taxpayers about $60,000 a year and "easily over $400,000" across eight years. Legislator Sage cited multiple charter provisions, saying the charter "clearly states that the Putnam County legislature has the power to appoint outside counsel on a per case basis." A former or long-serving legislator told the meeting that "We are separate but equal branches of government, and we have authority and power that we will maintain."

County attorney’s office: the county attorney’s deputy, First Deputy County Attorney John v Carico, told the meeting the Harris Beach memo (a review cited repeatedly in the discussion) concluded that the county attorney "must approve all contracts related to the hiring of outside counsel." He said the law department recommended issuing a revised request for proposals to clarify the role and ensure value for taxpayers; he also disputed statements that the county executive had unilaterally terminated a vendor contract.

Public comments and questions: Jack Ivanotti, a town supervisor, asked why the legislature had not issued a fresh RFP before the most recent renewal, noting prior RFPs in 2016 and 2021 and urging transparency about procurement timing. The meeting included other public speakers and former legislators who urged the legislature to retain independent counsel.

Financial and procedural context: members referenced prior votes and litigation. The record at the meeting included a referenced figure of $387,841 paid to Harris Beach in recent months for litigation costs; John v Carico said those transfers funded defense litigation. Legislators also said they previously voted 7–2 to extend the legislature’s counsel.

What happened next: the clerk conducted a roll-call vote for the resolution to appoint outside counsel and later for the amendment authorizing counsel for a prospective litigation matter; in both instances the clerk declared the motions carried. The meeting adjourned after the votes.

The legislature did not provide additional public details at the meeting about the revised RFP text or a timeline for completing any procurement; the county attorney’s office directed attendees to the Harris Beach memo for further legal analysis.