CANTON -- St. Lawrence County denied the District Attorney’s request to hire three new attorneys in a 7-6 vote. Although the vote was affirmed by a majority of legislators present, the county …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
To continue reading, you will need to either log in to your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a digital subscriber with an active, online-only subscription then you already have an account here. Just reset your password if you've not yet logged in to your account on this new site.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
CANTON -- St. Lawrence County denied the District Attorney’s request to hire three new attorneys in a 7-6 vote.
Although the vote was affirmed by a majority of legislators present, the county attorney said approval required at least 8 votes, which would be a majority of the total number of legislators.
The resolution would have created three new assistant district attorney positions with help from law school fellowships.
Last month the county’s operations committee approved the resolution that was accompanied by a three-year plan provided by District Attorney Mary Rain.
The plan establishes partnerships with a number of nationally accredited law schools that will fund half of the first year salary for three ADAs, amounting to over $87,000 in outside funding.
According to the plan, the county will provide funding for the remainder of the salaries and fringe benefits. As of Aug. 2016, the county will also be obligated to fund the entire salary and benefits for each of the new positions.
The resolution also includes a plan for the county to create two more ADA positions by Aug. 29 of 2016, under a similar agreement with law school fellowships.
“This resolution aims to equip the Office of the District Attorney with the resources necessary to safeguard the rights of victims, seek justice with steadfast and ethical determination, and adequately achieve its constitutional and statutory obligations,” the resolution says.
Although the resolution was defeated, the board may take it up again, when all members are present. If passed it would cost the county approximately $60,000 in 2015 and grow substantially when the county assumes the full cost.