Joint Committee Meeting on Violations of Probation and Proposed Charter Amendment – June 1, 2026

The Public Safety & Veterans and Legislation committees of the Westchester County Board of Legislators held a joint meeting on Monday, June 1, 2026, at 1:11 PM in the Michaelian Office Building. The session focused on a proposed charter amendment to remove the county attorney’s office from handling violations of probation (VOPs), a staffing crisis in the District Attorney’s office, and the operational inefficiencies of VOP court calendars. The meeting adjourned at 2:28 PM.

Consent Calendar

• Minutes Approval: The minutes of previous meetings of both committees were approved unanimously (8 ayes).

Discussion Items

1. Charter Amendment Proposal: County Attorney John Nonna explained that the county attorney’s office handles civil matters and lacks criminal‑law expertise. He proposed deleting the sentence in the charter that permits the county attorney to handle VOPs, arguing that such cases should remain with the District Attorney. District Attorney Susan Cacace and First Deputy Nancy Barry attended.
2. DA Office Staffing Crisis: District Attorney Cacace reported that her office is 16 assistant district attorneys short (a 12% decrease), with a hiring freeze in place. Attorneys are leaving for higher‑paying DA offices in New York City, Rockland, Orange, and Dutchess counties. Starting salary for an ADA is about $83,000, compared to $97,000 for a county attorney. The DA warned that if her office cannot continue handling VOPs, the county would have to pay for special prosecutors at $300–$400 per hour.
3. Characterization of VOPs: Debate ensued over whether VOPs are civil, criminal, or quasi‑criminal. County Attorney Nonna described them as criminal actions that terminate upon sentencing; District Attorney Cacace noted case law treats them as civil proceedings. Commissioner of Probation Rocco Pozzi (participating remotely) stated that VOP hearings involve serious liberty interests and require legal representation, but the department’s probation officers are not law‑trained.
4. Court Calendar Inefficiencies: Legislators and the DA raised concerns that VOP hearings are no longer scheduled on dedicated days, causing attorneys to wait hours or return on multiple dates. The supervising judge was said to have changed the calendar, fragmenting hearings across different days and court parts. The DA noted that sex‑offense VOPs have separate calendars, but general VOPs now cause “mayhem.”
5. Potential Solutions: Several legislators discussed unfreezing positions, increasing ADA salaries, exploring law‑school fellowships (e.g., with Pace University), or adopting alternative models used in other states (e.g., administrative hearing officers). District Attorney Cacace indicated that a meeting with the county executive’s office on May 13 regarding unfreezing spots had not yet yielded action.

Key Outcomes

• No Vote on Charter Amendment: The proposed legislation to remove the county attorney from handling VOPs was discussed but not voted on. The chair noted it had been previously introduced and considered; the meeting was informational.
• Agreement to Continue Dialogue: Legislators committed to further discussions on DA office staffing, court calendar management, and possible charter changes. A separate meeting on these issues was suggested.
• Statistics Shared: The DA reported her office handles approximately 22,000 cases annually, with VOPs estimated at “low thousands” (about 5% of total cases). The number of VOPs requiring follow‑up appearances was to be provided. The county attorney’s office is down 7–8 attorneys. The commissioner of probation confirmed that VOPs are essential for public safety and that legal representation is necessary.