Roughly 100 residents crowded into the Columbia County Board of Supervisors meeting in Hudson on Wednesday, July 10, voicing frustration after the board rejected a petition that would have put a fundamental question before voters: Should Columbia County have an elected county executive?
The petition, circulated in June by the Democrat-backed group Columbia County Forward, gathered 3,847 signatures — more than the 2,968 required to trigger a public referendum under state law. But after three residents filed formal objections, the board ruled that only 2,341 signatures were valid and disqualified the measure.
One of the objectors was Jim Miller, a registered Republican who serves as the Highway Superintendent for the Town of Ancram. “I kind of like things the way they are,” he told the Herald when asked why he challenged 1,577 signatures. “I think the county has run good for well over 200 years, the way it has been, and I don’t see any need to add another layer of government.”
Asked whether anything was substantively wrong with the signatures he objected to, Miller said, “I was told that there was supposed to be a date — the date of the general election in the heading on the petition itself — and there was something wrong with the witness statement.” When asked if anyone had instructed him to file the objection, he replied, “no comment.”
The other two objectors — Thomas Fisher of Greenport and Caitlin Gilligan of East Chatham — did not respond to requests from the Herald for comment. They cited similar technical issues in their objections.
“Each of the objections were identical, so it was certainly coordinated — by who, I don’t know,” said Abbie Hodgson, a volunteer spokesperson for Columbia County Forward.
Columbia County Board of Supervisors Chair Matt Murrell, a Republican representing Stockport, defended the board’s decision. “I think that the petitions that were denied, I think, were fair… upon review,” he said. “They followed election law, and election law governs this process.”
Hodgson said the petition was filed on June 16. General objections were submitted two days later, followed by specific objections on June 25. On June 27, the clerk for the Board of Supervisors, Kelly Picaro, notified the group that it had until June 30 to respond to the rejection of the signatures. Columbia County Forward submitted a 259-page rebuttal by the deadline.
But at an in-person conference on July 3, the Board of Supervisors rejected the petition.
“They had clearly arrived at their conclusion prior to the start of the hearing,” Hodgson said. “In fact, they already had their rejection letter typed up and ready to hand to us.”
Anticipating the decision, Columbia County Forward filed suit on July 2, arguing that the board had acted improperly in disqualifying the signatures. A hearing is scheduled for July 22 at Columbia County Supreme Court in Hudson.
At the heart of the dispute is a disagreement over how the petition should have been formatted. County officials argued it did not comply with standards required for candidate petitions, rejecting entries where addresses were abbreviated or witness statements were incomplete.
Hodgson said that in rural areas, residents often list mailing addresses rather than municipal towns, leading to further disqualifications: “I live on State Route 82. If I had put ‘NY 82’ instead of ‘State Route 82,’ they would have disqualified me.”
Murrell confirmed the county retained outside counsel, attorney James Curran, to assist in reviewing the petition. “Specialized counsel was needed,” he said, noting that Columbia County Forward had also retained legal counsel.
But Hodgson raised concerns about the use of public funds. “They haven’t replied to any of our FOIL [Freedom of Information Law] requests,” she said. “We’ve asked for details about the retention of this attorney, what he is being paid… just so we had clarity about how they were proceeding in the review.”
At the July 10 board meeting, residents voiced frustration that the referendum was being blocked over technicalities rather than substance.
Bill Walters, a registered Democrat and resident of Ancram, said, “One of the reasons I’m here is that I’m tired of politics in general. It took a lot of work to get those 4,000 signatures. And it’s from a lot of different parties, a lot of different people going out there. And to find out haphazardly that of those 4,000 signatures 40% of them were thrown out. I’m not even sure why, and a question I would have is, who made that decision? When you look at what’s happening with the government, local, and national, there’s a lot of things we can all come together on, and this is one of them. And so that’s why I’m here.”
Among the supervisors speaking at the meeting was Hudson Supervisor Linda Mussmann, a Democrat, who criticized what she described as a lack of inclusivity and transparency on the board.
“I like our chairman just fine, but I think he has a town to run. He has a lot of responsibilities, and I think this is a great opportunity for our county to enter the realm of cooperating with an entire state, not just our little home plate.”
“I feel as a minority, as a Democrat here, I have very little to say in how this place runs,” she added. “And I’d like to contribute, but I will never get to contribute. Why is that? Because I’m in the minority.”
After several Democratic supervisors spoke, the meeting broke into executive session to discuss the litigation.
Columbia County is one of just four counties in New York that does not have either an elected county executive or an appointed county administrator. Under the current structure, the county is governed by a board composed of the 23 town supervisors. Supporters of the referendum say this model dilutes the voices of smaller, rural communities.
Asked whether she believed the measure would make it onto the November ballot, Hodgson said, “We are hopeful. It was no small feat to have 10% of voters in Columbia County sign the petition asking for a right to vote on this.”