ULSTER COUNTY
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE
VETO MESSAGE
To: VietoriaFabella
Clerk of the Ulster County Legislature
From: Michael Hein
Ueter County Executi
Date: October 19, 2018
Re: Resolution No. 285, Dated September 20, 2018; Proposed Local Law No, 15 of 2018 Amending Losal Law No.2
(0 2006 and Local Law No. 10 of 2008, To Create Term Limits For Certain Ulster County Elected Officials
Pursuant to Ulster County Charter Seetion C-12, I am retuming Resolution No. 285, dated September 20, 2018,
‘with my veto. This action is taken, as always, with a strong focus on the great citizens of Ulster County and the
laws of New York State, and after extensive consultation with the current County Attorney, in which he concurs
with the previous County Attorney, that this legislation is legally flawed in that i is not permitted by New York
State Law. This fact supersedes the varying opinions with respect to the substance of the law concerning the
necessity or effectiveness of term limits.
Proposed Local Law No. 15 of 2018 is not only legally flawed, but many people of eonseience within our
‘community are concerned that this effort has been inappropriately influenced by “dark money” ffom the Mercer
‘controlled Reclaim New York,
‘The Proposed Local Law requires a mandatory referendum of Ulster County voters before the law can take
effect. (ee Section 4 of Local Law No. 15 of 2018.) While seeking the position and consent of the public is
‘admirable, a municipality may do so only when it is permitted by state law. New York State Law does not
provide municipalities the authority for the establishment of tem limits by this method. That sei, a local law
‘that does not require a referendum to establish tem limits would be valid upon holding public hearings.
thas been long-seitled law that statutory authority is required in order for a municipality to hold a referendum,
see MeCabe v. Voothis, 243 N.Y, 401 (1926); Woodburn v. Village of Owego, 151 A.D. 3d 1216, 1219 3%Dept. 2017) (“an ‘advisory referendum’ is not authorized in the absence of express statutory authority”);
Greene v Town Bd. of Town of Warrensburg, 90 AD2d 916, 916 (34 Dept 1982) (“A town or municipality may
not submit a proposition to the electorate in the absence of express statutory authority permitting it to do s0.”);
Kupferman y Katz, 19 AD2d 824 (Ist Dept, affd, 13 NY2d 932 (1963) (“tis equally clear that a legislative
referendum isnot authorized unless specifically required by statue.")
The Attomey General opinions have clearly stated, “A local government does not have the power by local law
or charter provision to require or permit a referendum on issues other than those provided for by the Municipal
Home Rule Law or other statutory authorization.” 1980 Atty. Gen. Op. (Inf) 221; see also 1998 Atty. Gen. Op.
(inf) 5 (It has long been established in this State that a local government may not hold referendum without s
specific authorization by the State Legislature.”). Therefore, the County cannot hold the referendum required
by Proposed Local Law No. 15 of 2018 unless there is sate statutory authority, and inthis case there is no such
authority to do so.
Municipal Home Rule Law §23 identifies the situation tht require holding a mandatory referendum while §24
identifies the scenarios that allow for a permissive referendum. Section 24 presents no basis for justifying a
permissive referendum inthis instance, while at frst glance, MHRL §23(2)(e) may seem to apply tothe instant
ase since it provides for a mandatory referendum when a local law: “Abolishes an elective offic, or changes
the method of nominating, eleting or removing an elective officer, or changes the term of an elective office, or
reduces the salary ofan elective officer during his term of office.” However, the courts have consistently held
that limiting the number of terms one person may serve does not abolish an aie, change the tem ofan office
‘or eurtail any power ofan offic; itis simply limitation on running for election. see Golden v, New York ity
‘Council, 305 A.D. 24 598 (2" Dept, 2003). In rejecting the applicability of holding a referendum, the Court in
‘Golden expressly held, “A local law is subject to mandatory referendum if it “changes the term of an elective
officer, oF ifit [abolishes transfers or curtail any power ofan eletive officer’. In this ease, however, Local
Law No, 27 merely amended the tem limit provisions ofthe City Charter without changing the length ofthe
term of office, or curtailing any power ofthe office.” I, at 599-600, see also Holbrook v, Rockland County,
260 A.D.26 437 (2% Dept. 1999); Benzow v, Cooley, 12 A.D. 162 (4* Dept. 1961) and Molnar. Bloombere
564 F'3d $87, 613-614 (noting that a local law adjusting term limits “affets only an incumbents eligibility 10
seek reelection” and determining that referendum was not required for such a local lw).
‘The opinion of the Attomey General also aligns with case law concerning the inapplicabilty of public
referendums to the imposition of term limits. see 1995 Atty. Gen. Op. (Inf) 29 (“We conelude that a local
government is authorized to enact a local law limiting the number of consecutive tems that an elected officer
‘may serve, Such a local law is not subject toa referendumm.”); 1983 Atty. Gen, Op. (If. 10 (“A village by local
law may limit the number of consecutive terms that one person may serve as mayor. Such a local law would not
be subject toa referendum”.
Accordingly, there is no state statutory authority for holding the referendum as required in Local Law No. 15 of
2018, As & result, and since the effective date of the Local Law is conditioned upon its approval at a
referendum that is prohibited from taking place, the Local Lav is legally flawed and unenforceable,
In addition to the legal impediments cited above, I am also concerned with the connection of ths local law to
Reclaim New York and the Mercers, Allowing this local law to go into effect would be opening the door for
“dark money” groups to have an impact on Ulster County government and Ulster County elections as they have
attempted to do elsewhere, and this is directly adverse to my commitment to protect the great residents of Ulster
County. Many constituents have reached out to myself and the legislature directly with eoncems over theinvolvement of Reclaim New York, and I do not believe stalling this legislation for three months adequately
addressed the issues raised
In tur, I stand with the League of Women Voters in opposing this legislation. Now is not the time to allow
‘outside influences to supersede the will ofthe residents of Ulster County. Therefore, I return Resolution No.
285 with my veto.