Bello Attempts to Silence Legislative Advocacy on Public Defenders’ Union
Legislators were warned against advocating for the union, raising alarm over free speech and democratic representation
The Bello administration is attempting to restrict how Monroe County legislators advocate for matters of public concern such as union recognition and fair contracts for county workers. These efforts represent a troubling overreach that could have a chilling effect on free speech and undermine fundamental democratic principles.
Last month, the public defenders union asked legislators to sign a petition supporting union recognition. A legislator, seeking guidance, emailed the petition to County Attorney John Bringewatt.1
Bringewatt responded with an astounding claim: signing the petition would likely constitute an ethics violation. He cited the county’s Code of Ethics, which prohibits county officials from serving as agents or representatives for others in matters pending before the county. He argued that signing the petition could be perceived as improper advocacy.
This interpretation of the Code of Ethics is both misleading and dangerous. Legislators have a responsibility to advocate for better policies and practices, including matters like union contracts that may eventually come before them. Advocacy is not negotiation, and conflating the two is both disingenuous and an overreach.
After assistant public defenders addressed the legislature to highlight their low wages and the lack of progress on recognition of their union, the Democratic Caucus sought an update from the Bello administration, prompting a letter from Deputy County Executive Jeff McCann. While McCann confirmed that the union is now recognized and bargaining has begun (great news!), his letter did not stop there. He warned legislators against “advocating” for the union, claiming it would be “counterproductive.” Notably, his letter avoided repeating Bringewatt’s baseless Code of Ethics argument, but the message was clear: legislators should stay silent.
This warning flies in the face of decades of legislative advocacy on behalf of unions. Legislators have historically walked picket lines, signed petitions, written letters, and accepted union endorsements. These actions are not only appropriate but integral to our responsibilities as elected representatives. For the Bello administration to suggest otherwise is an outrageous attempt to diminish the role of the legislature.
It’s important to note that legislators are not employees of Monroe County. We are elected officials who define our own roles, guided by our constituents—not by the executive branch. Our ultimate accountability is to the voters, not the Bello administration.
The administration’s actions risk having a chilling effect on legislators’ speech. Bello, often through McCann, has a history2 of punishing perceived dissenters—excluding them from briefings, lining up opponents to challenge them, and publicly criticizing them. Now, the administration is spreading misinformation about the scope of our roles, potentially deterring legislators who may not know better.
Democracy demands a strong, independent legislative branch where legislators can act as fierce advocates for the issues, individuals, and unions they choose to support. The Bello administration’s attempts to undermine this freedom are not just a disservice to legislators—they are a disservice to the people we represent.
The county attorney serves as the legislature’s attorney.
The Bello administration refused to provide me with a legal defense when I was hit with a frivolous defamation lawsuit. The case arose from my call for an investigation into the alleged “Juneteenth spoof” party that a Rochester fire captain attended along with this unit. The administration claimed I was not acting in my capacity as a legislator when I spoke out on this matter of public concern, arguing instead that I was acting personally and therefore not entitled to county-provided legal representation.
I challenged this in court, and the judge decisively rejected the administration’s argument. The court affirmed that legislators have broad powers to address public concerns and ruled that the county must provide me with a defense, emphasizing the potential “chilling effect” if legislators were forced to defend against defamation lawsuits on their own. Despite this ruling, the county is appealing the decision—a move that is unlikely to succeed.