In a continuing power struggle between the Republican county executive and the Democrat-led Dutchess County Legislature, score two for the executive.
Last month a state judge upheld the executive”™s view of who has say in appointing IDA members, and he vetoed a resolution creating project labor agreements for major public works projects in the county.
In a decision dated Sept. 22, State Supreme Court Justice James V. Brand upheld County Executive William Steinhaus”™s veto of a county Legislature resolution regarding IDA appointments. Democrats have vowed to appeal the decision.
The IDA resolution was approved in March. It replaced four sitting members of the county Industrial Development Agency with four new members of the seven member body. Steinhaus vetoed the resolution and directed the IDA not to sit the new appointees. There the matter sat for months until the IDA itself initiated a lawsuit in August to get the court to settle the matter. Â
The legal argument boiled down to whether state law gives the Legislature sole power to make appointments to public benefit corporations such as the IDA board or whether the provisions of the Dutchess County charter give the executive the right to veto such appointments. But Justice Brand”™s decision to uphold the executive is not clear cut.
“There appears to be a dearth of appellate authority specific to the issue at hand and indeed it is difficult to find abundant case law which discusses the relationship between state mandates and county charters which shed insight into this controversy,” Brand wrote in his five-page decision.
However he notes state law “is silent” on whether a county executive is to be involved and he concludes the state Legislature “has obviously” left that decision to county governments. In this case, he said, the Dutchess County Charter allows the executive to veto such appointments and also allows the county Legislature to override that veto if it has the votes and wants to do so.
Thus, in his ruling, Brand states that the incumbent IDA members appointed by an earlier Republican-controlled Legislature and approved by Steinhaus are the legitimate appointees. They are Henry Killian, David Tetor, Phyllis DiStasi Keenan and Charles Daniels III.
“We”™re definitely going to appeal it; our attorneys have already begun that process,” said legislative Chairman Roger Higgins.
However, Brand also ruled on a separate legal issue that was argued as part of the same case. His ruling also found that incumbent board member Daniel Kuffner and Tetor, hadn”™t filed timely oaths of office as required within 30 days of their appointment to the IDA board.
The judge blamed IDA officials for failing to notify the members of their obligation to file oaths, but nonetheless ruled their seats are now vacant.
The IDA board has asked the Legislature and Steinhaus to agree to reappoint the pair, but there is no certainty Democrats will agree to do so. Meanwhile, the IDA is proceeding with its agenda using a five-member board.
Since the decision was released Sept. 23, the IDA has met to set a public hearing date for a tax-exempt bond issuance requested by Mechtronics Corp. in Beacon. The company proposes to build a large addition to its plant on Fishkill Avenue at a cost of up to $6 million, consolidating its Westchester offices into the Beacon site. Its projection is that it will add 82 jobs over the next three years.
The public hearing date was set for Nov. 5, with details of time and place to be arranged.
On another business-related political issue, on Sept. 25, Steinhaus announced his veto of a resolution to create consideration of Project Labor Agreements for public projects costing $3.5 million or more.
Â
Â
The resolution would have required county officials to investigate whether a project labor agreement (PLA) that mandates union-scale wages and benefits should be utilized in public works projects in Dutchess County. It does not require a PLA be adopted.
Â
Steinhaus vetoed the measure, saying the resolution means “County government is creating a union monopoly.”
Higgins noted that Steinhaus”™ veto would be difficult to override, since the PLA resolution passed by a 15-9 margin. Seventeen votes are needed for the two-thirds majority to override.
“The veto certainly wasn”™t unexpected,” said Higgins. He said Democrats might seek to do a floor vote on overriding the veto. “It”™s unlikely we”™ll have enough votes to override the issue, but then again sometimes it”™s important to make a statement.”
Higgins expressed surprise at Steinhaus”™ antagonism toward PLA”™s. He noted that Orange County, which has a Republican executive in Edward Diana and its Legislature split evenly with 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats and one Independent, has a PLA agreement. “Orange has a PLA agreement and it seems to work very well for them,” said Higgins.
