POUGHKEEPSIE – Council Chairperson Sarah Salem was chastised by members of the public and fellow lawmakers at a special meeting Tuesday night. Salem called the meeting for the purpose of appealing a court ruling that validated the city mayor’s veto powers and the plan failed by a 3-2 vote.
Salem’s meeting was held to seek approval to have the council’s special attorney appeal a court decision that upheld the veto power of the mayor. Salem and a majority of the council sued Mayor Rob Rolison after he vetoed a council resolution that sought to hire an outside attorney rather than using the city’s legal department.
NYS Supreme Court Justice Hal Greenwald ruled that the city’s charter gives the mayor veto power. Tuesday’s meeting sought approval to have their attorney appeal the decision. The resolution language authorized the appeal, saying “BE IT RESOLVED, the Common Council hereby authorizes and directs the filing and prosecution by its counsel, Lamb & Barnosky, LLP, of an appeal to the Appellate Division, Second Department from the Supreme Court’s July 9, 2021, Decision & Order in the Matter of the Application of the Common Council of the City of Poughkeepsie v. Robert G. Rolison, in his official capacity as Mayor of the City of Poughkeepsie.”
Salem attempted to explain the reasoning for the legislation and contradicted the language in the bill. “This vote tonight, this resolution is not to specifically file an appeal, but to protect the council’s right to file an appeal if we so choose to do so.” Salem continued, stressing that the bill merely protected the council’s right to file an appeal within six months. The proposal contains no such language. Mid Hudson News consulted attorneys who said that, if passed, the lawyers for the council would have been authorized to file an appeal, with no mention of “preserving the right” as Salem indicated.
Salem was subjected to criticism by members of the public and fellow lawmakers for the attempt to continue the battle between the council and the mayor. The meeting took place without councilmembers Sarah Brannen, Natasha Cherry, Lorraine Johnson, and Randall Johnson. Only Salem, Yvonne Flowers, Sakima McClinton, Evan Menist, and Chris Petsas were present.
Councilwoman Yvonne Flowers was passionate in her opposition to the filing of an appeal. Agitated by Salem’s scheduling of the meeting while putting off a meeting to address violence in the city until the end of August triggered a passionate argument from Flowers. “Scheduling this meeting instead of addressing the violence in the city is upsetting,” said the northside lawmaker. “We should be coming together to address the violence instead of bringing this back up,” Flowers railed in opposition. Her argument was echoed by councilmembers McClinton and Petsas who both denounced the plan. Petsas argued against the plan over the weekend, saying “A judge heard the case and ruled against the council. We owe it to the residents of this city to address the rise in violent crime rather than wasting tax dollars on attorneys to argue petty differences in court.”
When hearing of the resolution’s demise, Mayor Rob Rolison responded with “Our administration wants to address the issues facing the city, rather than fighting each other in court battles. We look forward to the opportunity to work with the council to address issues such as violent crimes that are affecting the people of this great city”.
Council Chairperson Sarah Salem did not respond to a request for clarification of the language of the bill compared to the explanation provided during the meeting.
