ML20127A921
| ML20127A921 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/17/1985 |
| From: | Kelley E SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | Edles G, Rosenthal A, Wilber H NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127A925 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#285-514 OL, NUDOCS 8506210295 | |
| Download: ML20127A921 (2) | |
Text
b}
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK l
PETER F. COHALAN i
sUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF LAW MARTIN BRADLEY ASHARE COUNTY ATTORNEY ADDRcSS ALLCOMMUNICAvlCNS June 17,1985 usbc 15 JIN 20 A10:40 Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman CFFiCE OF SECRGr Ga ry J. Edles, Esq.
00CKEithC & SEPW' Mr. Howard A. Wilber BRANCH Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Re: Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station)
Docket No. 50-322-OL Gentleme n:
We recently received a copy of a letter dated J une 17, 198 5, sent by our former attorneys to the Appeal Board, in which they advise you that they, and not the Suf f olk County Attorney, speak for Suffolk County in the above ref erenced matter.
J Please be advised that, once again, we must state f or the record that the legal services of Kirkpatrick &
Lockhart have been terminated by Suff olk County effective J une 3, 198 5.
With specific reference to the items mentioned in the June 17th letter, be advised as f ollows:
1.
Regardless of the legality of Executive Order 1-1985, it is the position of the County Attorney that the County Executive was empowered and in fact lawfully termi-nated the services of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart.
This is for the reason that the original enabling resolutions passed by the Suf f olk County Legislature (Resolutions 43-1982 and 276-1982) lef t to the discretion of the County Executive exactly what experts were to be retained.
Pursuant to said re solutions, the County Executive interviewed four law firms and thereaf ter decided to retain the services of Kirk-patrick, et al.
The contract signed by the law firm in question specifically indicated that they are to assist the 8506210295 850617 PDR ADOCK 05000322 G
PDR isi e, 3.o.4o verenaus acuoaiaL w.owwAv waureauce. ucw voa.c i n vee Y
=.
l Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board 6/17/85 Page 2 Suff olk County Attorney in this proceeding.
F urthermore, Paragraph 5 of the contract authorizes termination on 30-days notice which, in this case, has already been ef-fected.
2.
The statement contained in the last paragraph of the letter to the ef f ect that "...On June 11, the County Legislature resolved that Kirkpatrick & Lockhart has not been terminated as counsel for suff olk County..." is a complete misrepre sentation.
No such resolution exists.
The only way in which a legislative body may act is when they are duly convened and act pursuant to the County Charter and the rules of the legislature.
No such resolution has been adopted.
Once again, we reiterate that Kirkpatrick &
Lockhart have been removed as counsel to the County and have no authority to speak on the County's behalf.
Very truly yours, MARTIN BRADLEY ASHARE Suff olk County Attorney h
b By:
Eugene R Kelley Chief De pty County Attor y
MBA: ERK: rq Copie s:
Service List
-,