MONTICELLO, NY — Sullivan County District Attorney Meagan Galligan is expected to retire from that post on January 1 to take a seat on the third judicial district of the New York State Supreme Court, a seat she won in November’s general election.

Prior to her departure, Galligan appeared before the Sullivan County Legislature to advocate for her staff, sparking a conversation that turned contentious.

Galligan appeared at the legislature’s public safety committee meeting on December 1 and returned to a theme discussed in October of 2021: the inadequacy of the salaries for members of her staff.

Starting salaries for assistant district attorneys were in October 2021 lower than those of nearby counties. After Galligan brought the matter to the legislature’s attention, it took action to remedy that discrepancy on October 21, 2021.

The December 2022 discussion wasn’t about salaries; it was about adjustments. Non-union government employees received across-the-board raises between two and three percent in the 2023 budget, said Galligan. (Union employees receive raises as part of their union contracts, and aren’t part of this across-the-board action.) The district attorney’s non-union staff were excluded, staff that included her confidential secretary and assistant district attorneys.

Legislators had given their verbal support for assistant district attorneys to receive two percent cost-of-living adjustments during conversation in October 2021, but language to that effect did not make the final resolution made on the 21st.

Galligan clarified during the public hearing on December 8 that she had not requested a two-percent raise the initial 2023 budget asked for her department. She had been unaware of the planned two-percent increase for county management and confidential staff, and she returned to the legislature that day once she noted her staff’s exclusion.

“We don’t necessarily as management [and] confidential employees get what the unions get. But at some point, at levels separate from me, the county manager and others make determinations as to what management [and] confidential should get. If you remove people from that schedule… now they’re comparatively at a disadvantage again,” said Galligan.

Investigation conflagration

The conversation at the public safety committee meeting about the DA’s office turned into a confrontation at the day’s public hearing on adopting the 2023 budget.

Galligan had touted a new hire in her office during the public safety meeting—a new investigator, a Sullivan County resident state police investigator, set to be up and running within two weeks and expected to be stationed at the family violence child-advocacy center. “He’s extremely well qualified, and the sheriff and I are proud to bring him on board,” said Galligan at the time.

Hours later, just before the public hearing, legislators passed around a set of printed pages containing amendments to the county’s budget. Those pages were provided to the public after public request. They contained, among other amendments, a line abolishing the investigator position in the district attorney’s office and creating an identical line in the sheriff’s office, moving the new hire to the sheriff’s office.

The proposed move attracted immediate outcry.

“The move is nothing more than a blunt ‘up-yours’ to the DA of Sullivan County,” said frequent public commenter Lou Setren.

“I oppose the amendment in no uncertain terms,” said Galligan. “I oppose the idea that the district attorney, the chief law enforcement official in this county, doesn’t have authority or say in who investigates some of the most serious criminal cases in this county.”

Galligan first attempted to fill the position in May of 2021, and had received no timely response, she said. “This is gamesmanship at its finest… I ask you to ask yourselves whether that’s the right thing, whether the child advocacy center and the office of the district attorney should be casualties of some political warfare.”

“Mr. Chairman, the comment I would like to make is I will not support this amendment,” said legislator Alan Sorensen, directly after Galligan presented her defense.

“Where did [the amendments] arise from?” asked legislator Nadia Rajsz.”

“We thought that [the position] would be better under the sheriff’s office,” said chairperson Rob Doherty. “Myself, Josh [Potosek].”

“[Galligan] knows, she’s the expert, not you or Josh,” said Rajsz.

“Why wasn’t it discussed?” asked legislator Ira Steingart. “It’s not just one person, there’s nine of us here.”

Galligan told the legislature that Sheriff Mike Schiff did not want the position, and that he would not fill it if the legislature insisted on the transfer. She telephoned him before her comments; shortly thereafter, he came to the legislature hearing room to make comments of his own.

“By the DA’s office leading off on a lot of things, it makes things go easily,” said Schiff. “If people think I’m trying to take over and that I’m looking to run law enforcement county-wide and tell the police departments what to do and control that, it casts a dark cloud over everything.

“We need to be very careful on how we move. I’m not sure what was said, but I can guess this was a discussion that should have been had behind closed doors,” Schiff added.

Doherty spoke as the sole voice in favor of the proposal. He referenced the length of time it had been unfilled, and criticized the DA’s handling of certain cases involving children. While much of his critique was unspecific, Galligan said that she stood behind her decisions in the one case Doherty referenced in particular.

Sorensen said he thought her department had done an outstanding job. He introduced an amendment to address the discrepancy between Galligan’s staff and other management and confidential staff, and his opposition ensured that the amendment on the investigator position didn’t make it to the floor for a vote.