Editor’s note: This story was updated at 7:12 p.m. with new comments from the Republican elections commissioner.
Syracuse, N.Y. – Two hours after he announced his intention to veto a local law imposing term limits on his job and the county comptroller’s, County Executive Ryan McMahon mistakenly signed a letter approving the law instead. His office emailed the approval letter over to the legislature clerk.
Nineteen minutes later, McMahon’s office emailed his signature on a veto message to the clerk.
But there are no takebacks, said Democrats who dominate the legislature.
After conferring with their outside counsel, legislative leaders said the receipt of a signed approval from the county executive made the legislation official. The subsequent transmittal of a veto was no longer relevant, they said.
“It’s whatever was received first,’’ said Legislature Chairwoman Nicole Watts, citing the county charter.
Legislature leaders will transmit the signed law to the county Board of Elections to be placed on the November ballot for a public referendum.
Nonsense, said County Attorney Robert Durr. He said McMahon made a simple mistake that was later corrected. If Democrats persist in trying to forward the legislation for a public referendum, the matter likely will end up in court, he said.
“It’s a simple error that no court is going to punish anybody for,’’ Durr said.
The goof is likely to inflame the already testy relationship between Democrats and Republicans in county government. How could it happen?
Durr took the blame.
Following a public hearing on the legislation Wednesday morning in his office, McMahon said he intended to veto it. The law would limit the county executive and comptroller to three four-year terms in office.
McMahon said he would veto the legislation “because of the partisan nature of it.” The proposal passed by a vote of 10-7, with only one Republican in support.
Not long after the meeting, Durr said, he told McMahon that he had reviewed the veto document and that it was ready to sign. Apparently, the approval message was also in the packet.
“I told him to sign all the documents in that folder, and it’s my error. … I told him I read everything and I approved everything,’’ Durr said.
The approval message was emailed to the legislature clerk at 11:38 a.m., Watts said. A clerk replied to confirm receipt at 11:50 a.m.
At 11:57 a.m., the veto message was emailed to the legislature.
To make matters even more puzzling, a few minutes later the county attorney’s office sent over hard copies of the documents to the legislature. They hand delivered both messages – the approval, and the veto.
The county attorney’s office later called to say the approval notice had been sent in error.
Watts said legislators consulted with Underberg and Kessler, the Rochester law firm that provides them with independent advice, and were advised to forward the signed legislation to the Board of Elections for placement on the ballot. Lawmakers say voters should have the final say on whether the term limits become law.
“I have yet to encounter anyone who’s experienced this before, right? It’s the utmost importance that we’re upholding the law. And so we needed to seek guidance,’’ she said.
McMahon’s office said his intent was obvious.
“The county executive’s stance on the issue has been made clear repeatedly. Today, he read and signed a veto accordingly,’’ said Justin Sayles, a spokesman. McMahon vetoed a similar bill last month that would have placed term limits on his job.
Dustin Czarny, the county’s Democratic elections commissioner, said he believes election law directs the Board of Elections to accept the notice from the legislature and to place the item on the ballot for a referendum.
Kevin Ryan, the Republican commissioner, disagreed. McMahon’s approval letter was “a clerical error’’ that was later corrected, he said. He will not approve placing the item on the ballot, he said.
Agreement from both commissioners is required to place a proposition on the ballot. If they can’t agree, the matter could go to court.
But it’s likely headed to court in any case, Czarny said.
“It’s going to go to court, and it’s okay to go to court. That’s where these things are decided,’’ he said.
