May 18, 2026 Joint Committee Meeting: Civil Service Classification Reform and VOP Prosecution Repeal
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
May 18, 2026 Joint Committee Meeting: Civil Service Classification Reform and VOP Prosecution Repeal
The joint meeting of the Legislation and Public Safety & Veterans committees convened on Monday, May 18, 2026 at 2:08 PM and adjourned at 2:40 PM. Two main items were considered: (1) a resolution (2026-257) requesting state legislation to remove a unique requirement that Westchester County obtain the governor’s signature for civil service classification changes, and (2) a public hearing resolution (2026-25) and local law (2026-26) repealing the County Attorney’s authorization to prosecute violations of probation (VOP). Neither the consent calendar nor public comments were presented.
Discussion Items
Civil Service Classification Resolution (2026-257)
Steve Bass (Director of Intergovernmental Relations) and Gina Pickenich (Acting Commissioner of Human Resources) presented. They explained that Westchester County is uniquely required to obtain the governor’s signature—in addition to New York State Civil Service Commission approval—for jurisdiction class changes (e.g., competitive to non-competitive or labor). This requirement, originating in Chapter 617 of the Laws of 1937, causes delays of months, with 268 titles approved by the State Commission but unsigned by the governor since 2024. No other county in New York has this requirement. The County Executive, working with the state delegation, requested a Board resolution to ask the state legislature to remove the requirement. Legislators expressed strong support, noting that Westchester should not be treated differently and that the reform would improve recruitment and efficiency, especially ahead of state civil service transformation. No opposition was voiced.
Repeal of VOP Prosecution Authorization (2026-25 and 2026-26)
Justin Adin (Assistant Chief Deputy County Attorney) presented the proposed repeal. The authorization, added in the early 2000s when a prior district attorney refused to handle VOPs, has been dormant for nearly 20 years. The County Attorney’s office resumed limited VOP work in 2025 only for conflict cases from the current District Attorney, but lacks capacity and expertise—having previously dedicated multiple attorneys to this work. Adin noted that VOP cases can appear in any of the county’s local courts, require all-day appearances, and can drag on for months. The office has already stopped accepting new conflict VOPs, with courts appointing special prosecutors instead. An amendment was proposed to section two of the local law, changing the effective date to “immediately, except that it shall not apply to violations of probation for which the county attorney’s office has an active appearance as of the date of this enactment.” Another amendment updated pronoun references to the County Attorney from “he” to “they.” Legislators asked about consultation with the District Attorney and Probation Department; the County Attorney’s office confirmed they had been consulted and that the law does not affect the DA’s authority to handle VOPs. Some legislators expressed a desire to have the DA present to discuss her perspective, but noted the law merely removes a permissive authorization that no longer reflects the County Attorney’s capabilities.
Key Outcomes
- Resolution 2026-257 (Civil Service Reform)
- Unanimously approved by the Legislation committee (all present members voted yes).
- Next step: The County will receive a bill number from the state Senate and Assembly and return for a home rule resolution.
- Public Hearing Resolution (2026-25) and Local Law (2026-26) (VOP Repeal)
- The two amendments (effective date exception and pronoun update) were unanimously approved by both the Legislation and Public Safety & Veterans committees.
- The items, as amended, were then unanimously approved by both committees (Legislation vote: all yes; Public Safety & Veterans vote: Legislator Nolan without prejudice, all others yes).
- The public hearing date for the local law was not set during the meeting; the resolution will be referred to the full Board of Legislators for scheduling.
Meeting Transcript
No, because it's a branch. I was going to say you want to ask anyway. This meeting is being recorded and summarized. Good afternoon, everyone. And uh welcome for our um one o'clock meeting. One o'clock some o'clock. Not quite one o'clock. Um this is our meeting of uh legislation Monday, May 18th, and I am going to call our meeting to order. I am here, uh committee vice chair Emma Mora. Yeah. Board Vice Chair Clemens. Minority Leader Cunzio. Legislative Barr. Here. Legislator Nolan. Yeah. Legislator Pujo. Here. Legislator Uli. Here. And Chairman Gashi. Here. Okay. So we are now, we have started at 2 08 p.m. And I uh apologize for the delay and thanks to our guests for your uh patience. And um we're gonna take things slightly out of order. Um I will recognize the chairman he has a motion. Yeah, uh Chairman, I uh request that we uh consider the uh resolution 2026 uh-257, which I believe is going to distributed um yeah, formal consideration formal and immediate consideration. Okay. And do we have to uh discuss and then vote? Does it do there need to be a vote to consider it, or do we just start okay? So then uh Mr. You wouldn't mind putting your appearance on the record or whoever's going to um walk us through this. My name is Steve Bass. I'm Director of Intergovernmental Relations for the Westchester County Executive. And Gina Pickenich, Acting Commissioner of Human Resources. Welcome everybody. So whoever wants to take it away. Um I'll start. Uh and then I'll let either Justin or Gina Bill. Um so this issue came to our attention where Westchester County um if they needed a status change to a civil service position. Not only did they have to get approval from the New York State Civil Service Commission, but they needed uh the governor to sign off those changes. We also found out we're the we have not found, I should say, any other municipality that is required to do this. So very often um situations where local municipalities do this, it just takes a couple of weeks. In our instances, it um takes much longer, sometimes months. Um once the county executive heard about this, he was um put to us we should not be treated differently, and we need to make the change so we can help move our processes along. And so we started working with our state delegation recently on this, and the request came from the Senate that the board of legislators pass a resolution requesting that um the state legislature adopt uh such legislation, and uh then we'll get a bill number of the Senate and the assembly, and we'll submit a homework resolution for you all to consider. All right. Sounds uh straightforward enough. Did uh does anyone want to add anything to that?
openpublica.com