Do private industry council members in New York have to file annual financial disclosure forms with the county?

Subject

PIC members need not file financial disclosure forms

Plain-English summary

Chenango County, which had adopted a local financial disclosure law as required for counties of 50,000 or more under General Municipal Law §§ 810-812, asked whether members of a private industry council (PIC) appointed by the county had to file annual disclosure forms. PICs were the local oversight bodies created under the federal Job Training Partnership Act for service delivery areas. Chenango was one of three counties forming a single service delivery area.

The AG concluded PIC members do not file under the New York disclosure regime, with one exception: members who serve on the PIC as governmental representatives of the county itself (i.e., officials wearing two hats) do have to file, because they are still county officers in their primary role.

The reasoning ran through the federal structure of PICs. Under 29 USC § 1511 et seq., the governor designates service delivery areas, and a PIC is established for each. Members are nominated by their respective sectors (private sector representatives form a majority, with seats also for labor, community-based organizations, education, vocational rehabilitation, public assistance, economic development, and the public employment service). Initial members are appointed by the chief elected officials of the local governments in the service delivery area; subsequent appointments are made by the council itself. PICs prepare their own budgets, can incorporate, hire staff, and accept contributions and grant funds from public or private sources.

That structural profile, the AG concluded, makes PICs entities separate and apart from the municipalities where they are located, not units of municipal government. Their officers and employees are PIC officers and employees, not county officers and employees. So General Municipal Law §§ 810-812, which apply to officers and employees of counties, cities, towns, and villages, do not reach PIC members.

The AG noted the consistency with prior office work: 1987 Op Atty Gen 32 held that a municipality could elect to provide Public Officers Law § 18 defense and indemnification to PIC officers and employees because PICs are "public entities" formed for the benefit of the municipality. That election framework treats the PIC as separate (otherwise no election would be needed). The same separateness drives the disclosure result.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. The Job Training Partnership Act was replaced by the Workforce Investment Act in 1998 and later by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, so PICs in their JTPA form no longer exist. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

What was a private industry council under the JTPA?

A PIC was the local oversight body for the federal Job Training Partnership Act program in a service delivery area. The PIC partnered with local elected officials to develop and oversee a job training plan for the area, selected grant recipients, and approved the area's training budget. PICs were intentionally majority private-sector, to bring business perspective to public workforce training.

What replaced the JTPA structure?

The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 replaced PICs with Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs), and the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014 further reorganized the system into Workforce Development Boards (WDBs). Each restructuring has changed governance and membership rules, but the basic concept of a private-sector-majority local board overseeing federally funded workforce development persists.

Does the same reasoning apply to current Workforce Development Boards?

The structural reasoning of this opinion (federal creation, board majority private sector, board sets its own budget, separate hiring authority) would likely apply to successor boards under WIOA, but each successor statute has its own governance details. A current opinion would need to examine WIOA's specific structure.

What about the exception for governmental representatives?

The AG noted that some PIC seats were filled by representatives of educational agencies, vocational rehabilitation agencies, public assistance agencies, economic development agencies, and the public employment service. To the extent those representatives were themselves local government officers or employees, their underlying municipal status (not their PIC service) brought them under the disclosure law. PIC service did not exempt a county officer from filing what the county officer would otherwise have to file.

How does the "public entity" status under Public Officers Law § 18 fit?

Section 18 lets a municipality opt to provide defense and indemnification not only for its own officers but also for officers and employees of "public entities" formed for the benefit of the municipality. A PIC qualifies as such a public entity. The 1987 opinion the AG cites recognized that, while also confirming that the PIC's officers are not, by default, municipal officers. The disclosure question turns on that default rule: PIC members are not municipal officers, period.

Statutory framework

The New York side of the analysis is General Municipal Law Article 18:

• § 810 defines "political subdivision" (counties, cities, towns, or villages of 50,000+) that must enact disclosure laws.
• § 811 sets the disclosure requirements that political subdivisions must impose on local officers and employees.
• § 812 provides a state-imposed default disclosure regime for political subdivisions that fail to enact their own.

The federal side is the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), specifically:

• 29 USC § 1511 authorized the governor to designate service delivery areas.
• 29 USC § 1512 set the composition rules for PICs (majority private sector, plus specified seats).
• 29 USC § 1513 set the PIC's functions (oversight of job training plans, budget approval, grant recipient selection, staff hiring, etc.).

The Public Officers Law § 18 cross-reference is relevant for understanding the AG's "separate entity" framing.

Source

• Landing page: https://ag.ny.gov/libraries-documents/opinions/opinions-year
• Original PDF: https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/I_95-17_pw.pdf

Original opinion text

GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW §§ 810, 811; PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW § 18; 29 USC § 1511(a)(1); 29 USC § 1512(a), (c), (d), (e), (g); 29 USC
§ 1513(a), (b), (d), (e).
Members of a private industry council, except for those serving in a governmental capacity, are not required to file financial disclosure forms under Article 18 of the General Municipal Law. March 2, 1995

Richard W. Breslin, Esq.
County Attorney
County of Chenango
County Office Building
Norwich, NY 13815

Informal Opinion
No. 95-17

Dear Mr. Breslin:
You have asked whether members of a private industry council must comply with the annual disclosure requirements of sections 810 and 811 of the General Municipal Law. A private industry council has responsibility for policy, guidance and oversight with respect to activities under the job training plan for its service delivery area in partnership with the unit or units of general local government within the area. 29 USC § 1513(a). The governor of each state is required to designate service delivery areas which may be comprised of the state or one or more units of general local government in the state. 29 USC § 1511(a)(1). A private industry council is required to be established in each service delivery area. A private industry council consists of representatives of the private sector who constitute a majority of the council; representatives of organized labor and community based organizations who constitute at least 15% of the council; and representatives of educational agencies, vocational rehabilitation agencies, public assistance agencies, economic development agencies and the public employment service. 29 USC
§ 1512(a). Proposed members of private industry councils are nominated and recommended by representatives of the various interest groups that comprise the council. 29 USC § 1512(c). The members of the councils are appointed by the chief elected official or officials of the units of general local government comprising the service delivery area. In the absence of agreement, the appointments are to be made by the governor from the individuals nominated or recommended. 29 USC § 1512(d).

2
The initial number of members of the council is to be determined by the chief elected official(s) and subsequently is to be determined by the council. 29 USC § 1512(e). The governor certified a private industry council upon finding that the composition and appointments are consistent with the provisions of law. 29 USC § 1512(g). The function of private industry councils is to provide, in partnership with the unit or units of general local government, guidance and oversight regarding activities under the job training plan for the service delivery area. 29 USC § 1513(a). The council, in agreement with the local government(s), determines procedures for the development of the job training plan and selects grant recipients which might be the council or a unit of general local government. 29 USC § 1513(b). Once approved by both parties, a job training plan is to be submitted jointly by the council and appropriate chief elected officials in the service delivery area. 29 USC § 1513(d). The private industry council, in accordance with the job training plan, prepares and approves a budget for itself and is authorized to hire staff, incorporate, and solicit and accept contributions and grant funds from both public and private sources. 29 USC § 1513(e). Sections 810 through 812 of the General Municipal Law provide for financial disclosure at the local level. Some municipalities are required to provide for financial disclosure either through timely enactment of their own disclosure requirements (see, § 811) or through application of the State disclosure requirements (see, § 812). These municipalities are referred to as "political subdivisions" and include counties, cities, towns or villages having a population of 50,000 or more. General Municipal Law § 810(1). You have indicated that your county has adopted an annual financial disclosure local law as required. I note that other municipalities (any county, city, town or village) may locally require financial disclosure. Your county is one of three counties forming a service delivery area on whose behalf a private industry council has been established. Your question is whether the private industry council members appointed by your county are required to comply with the financial disclosure requirements of the county. We note that in a prior opinion of this office we considered whether a local government may provide for defense and indemnification of officers and employees of a private industry

3
council under section 18 of the Public Officers Law. Section 18 establishes a procedure for local defense and indemnification through local option of a municipality. In addition to coverage of its own officers and employees under section 18, a municipality may elect to cover the employees of a "public entity". A "public entity" is one established for the benefit of the municipality. We found that a municipality may elect to provide defense and indemnification for the officers and employees of a private industry council formed for its benefit. 1987 Op Atty Gen 32. Thus, in that opinion we did not treat the officers and employees of a private industry council as employees of the municipality, but found that the council is a separate entity formed for the benefit of the municipality whose officers and employees could be brought within the coverage of section 18 of the Public Officers Law. In our view, the officers and employees of a private industry council are not officers and employees of the municipality. It seems clear from the provisions of Federal law establishing private industry councils that these councils are entities separate and apart from the municipalities where they are located. Private industry councils are formed to provide services within a service delivery area which might include the State, a single municipality or several municipalities. While initial appointments to a private industry council are made by the officials of local governments in the service delivery area, these appointments are limited to certain categories of employees who are primarily in the private sector. Subsequent appointments are made by the council itself. Under Federal law, the council deals with local governments as separate entities, for example, in developing the job training plan. The council prepares and approves its own budget in accordance with the job training plan and has full responsibility for hiring its staff. The council may incorporate and independently solicit and accept contributions and grant funds. Based on all of the above, we believe that the members of a private industry council do not fall within the financial disclosure requirements set forth in sections 810 through 812 of the General Municipal Law. These members are not officers and employees of a county, city, town or village. They are officers and employees of a private industry council. We note that officers and employees of a local government who are serving on a private industry council as governmental representatives would be required to file financial disclosure forms in that they are serving on the council in a governmental capacity. See, 1987 Op Atty Gen 32, 33.

4
We conclude that members of a private industry council, except for those serving in a governmental capacity, are not required to file financial disclosure forms under Article 18 of the General Municipal Law. The Attorney General renders formal opinions only to officers and departments of State government. This perforce is an informal and unofficial expression of the views of this office. Very truly yours,

JAMES D. COLE
Assistant Attorney General
in Charge of Opinions