Joint Legislation and Public Safety Committee Meeting on Violations of Probation – June 1, 2026

The joint Legislation and Public Safety committees met on Monday, June 1, 2026, at 1:11 PM in the Committee Room of the Michaelian Office Building. The primary agenda item was a discussion on violations of probation (VOPs) and proposed charter legislation to remove the County Attorney’s Office from handling these cases. District Attorney Susan Cacace, First Deputy District Attorney Nancy Barry, County Attorney John Nonna, Chief Deputy County Attorney Stacey Dolgin-Kmetz, Assistant Chief Deputy County Attorney Justin Adin, and Commissioner of Probation Rocco Pozzi participated. The meeting adjourned at 2:28 PM without a vote on the legislation, as it had been previously approved in committee.

Minutes Approval

• The minutes from May 4, 2026, and May 18, 2026, were approved unanimously by voice vote (motion by Legislator Cunzio, seconded by Legislator Gashi).

Discussion Items

• Proposed Charter Amendment: County Attorney John Nonna explained that his office lacks criminal law expertise and does not believe it should handle VOPs, which stem from criminal proceedings. The proposed amendment would delete the sentence in the county charter that currently allows the County Attorney’s Office to handle these cases. He noted that special prosecutors are already appointed for conflict cases where the DA is recused.
• District Attorney’s Staffing Concerns: District Attorney Cacace stated that her office has experienced a 12% decrease in legal staff (16 vacancies out of 130 authorized positions) due to a hiring freeze, lack of salary increases since 2024, and pay disparity with the County Attorney’s Office (starting salary $83,000 vs. $97,000). She warned that if staffing worsens, the office may be unable to handle VOPs, forcing the county to pay for special prosecutors at rates of $300–$400 per hour, compared to $158 per hour for court-appointed 18-B attorneys. She emphasized that VOPs are civil under penal law, though the county attorney argued they are quasi-criminal.
• Probation Commissioner’s Position: Commissioner Pozzi stated that regardless of legal classification, there is a clear need for legal representation of probation officers at VOP hearings. He opposed splitting responsibility between offices, arguing that one entity should handle all VOPs due to the seriousness of potential liberty deprivations.
• Legislator Comments: Legislator Nolan noted that other counties (Nassau, Suffolk, Dutchess, Putnam) handle VOPs through their DA’s offices. Chairman Gashi clarified that the legislation does not mandate the DA to handle VOPs, only removes the obligation from the County Attorney. Several legislators (e.g., Barr, Nambiar) supported the amendment, arguing that criminal law expertise is best suited to the DA’s office. Legislator Holstein requested data on county attorney hours spent on VOPs. Legislator Williams Johnson raised alternative models (e.g., administrative hearings or probation courts) used in other states, though Commissioner Pozzi noted New York law requires court involvement. Legislator Ulaj supported keeping VOPs with the DA due to staff expertise.
• Calendar Management Issues: DA Cacace and First Deputy Barry described inefficiencies in VOP court calendars, with cases being adjourned to multiple days and ad hoc scheduling, increasing attorney time and costs. They suggested the problem may be due to judge discretion and training.

Key Outcomes

• No vote was taken on the proposed charter legislation; it had already been approved in a prior committee meeting.
• Chair Smith committed to scheduling another joint meeting of the Legislation and Public Safety committees to further discuss staffing issues, pay parity, and potential solutions with the District Attorney and Commissioner of Probation.
• The committees agreed that the broader issues of hiring freezes, salary competitiveness, and court calendar management require separate follow-up discussions.