Does a fire district commissioner have a conflict if he's a paid firefighter in another city and belongs to the same national union as the firefighters he must negotiate with?

Subject

Fire district commissioner has no conflict from shared national union membership

Plain-English summary

The Eastchester Fire District has five elected fire commissioners who negotiate union contracts with the district's career firefighters. Those career firefighters are represented by International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) Local 916. One of the fire commissioners is, in his day job, a paid firefighter in the City of Mount Vernon and belongs to a different IAFF local. Counsel asked whether the commissioner had a conflict of interest in negotiating with the Eastchester firefighters' union, given that he was a member of the same national parent union.

The AG concluded there was no conflict. The reasoning had several layers.

First, fire district commissioners are unpaid elected volunteers under Town Law § 174(2) and (3). The AG noted that volunteer commissioners typically have day jobs to support their families. Mere outside employment, including union membership in the day job, does not by itself create a conflict.

Second, the AG looked at the structural incentive. The commissioners could affect dues only through their control of the number of paid firefighters; they had no other control over the amount sent to the local or national union. The commissioner belonged to a different local. The national IAFF has many locals. So whatever dues the commissioner indirectly benefited from were dispersed across the whole union ecosystem.

Third, the AG noted a fact specific to Westchester County: cities benchmark firefighter contracts against each other. The Eastchester contract would not necessarily serve as a model for Mount Vernon firefighters. So the commissioner had no clear personal stake in driving Eastchester contract terms in any particular direction to benefit his own local's negotiations.

The AG concluded the incentive to act contrary to the public interest was remote, if it existed at all.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. 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 would tip this into an actual conflict?

The opinion does not decide that hypothetical. It relies on the commissioner belonging to a different local, the national union having many locals, and the uncertain effect of Eastchester's contract on Mount Vernon negotiations.

Are fire commissioners always unpaid in New York?

Town Law § 174(2) and (3) provide that fire commissioners are elected and receive no compensation. The volunteer model is part of why the AG's analysis is permissive on outside employment: forbidding all firefighters from serving as fire commissioners would shrink the pool of available volunteers in a way the statute does not contemplate.

Does it matter that the parent IAFF benefits from any local contract gain?

The AG notes that a portion of local dues goes to the national union, which has many locals. In the described circumstances, the commissioner's shared national-union membership created only a remote incentive, if any, to act against the public interest.

Does the opinion analyze local ethics codes?

The opinion does not analyze a local ethics code. It answers whether the commissioner has a conflict on the facts given.

Does this opinion apply to police commissioners or other commissioner positions?

The opinion addresses an Eastchester fire district commissioner who worked as a Mount Vernon firefighter and belonged to a different local of the same national union. It does not decide conflicts for police commissioners or other positions.

Statutory framework

Town Law § 174(2) and (3) make fire district commissioners elected and unpaid. The opinion notes that volunteers ordinarily have other paid work and concludes that a commissioner's labor-union membership in that work does not alone create a conflict.

The opinion considers the commissioner's separate union local, the flow of dues, and the uncertain effect of Eastchester negotiations on Mount Vernon terms. It does not analyze other ethics rules or earlier opinions.

Source

• Landing page: https://ag.ny.gov/libraries-documents/opinions/opinions-year
• Original PDF: https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/I_95-24_pw.pdf

Original opinion text

TOWN LAW § 174(2), (3).
A commissioner of the Eastchester Fire District does not have a conflict of interests as a result of his private employment as a firefighter where he is a member of the same national union as the paid firefighters with whom he must negotiate contracts on behalf of the fire district. April 26, 1995

Nicholas M. DiCostanzo, Esq.
Eastchester Fire District
P. O. Box 219
Bronxville, NY 10708

Informal Opinion
No. 95-24

Dear Mr. DiCostanzo:
You have asked whether a conflict of interests exists under the following circumstances. A commissioner of the Town of Eastchester Fire District along with the other four elected fire commissioners are responsible for negotiating union contracts with the career firefighters (paid) in the Eastchester Fire District. These firefighters are represented by the International Association of Firefighters, Local 916. The commissioner in question, in his personal career as a paid firefighter in the City of Mount Vernon, is a member of the same International Association of Firefighters but belongs to a different local. You have asked whether the commissioner has a conflict of interests in negotiating union contracts on behalf of the Eastchester Fire District as a result of his membership in the International Association of Firefighters union. First, we note that the position of fire district commissioner is an elected office and that commissioners receive no compensation. Town Law § 174(2), (3). Persons serving as fire district commissioners are volunteers who have taken on a significant responsibility in developing policy on behalf of the fire district. In light of the voluntary nature of this service, commissioners will ordinarily have other employment in order to support their families. Thus, the mere fact that a commissioner in his paying job is a member of a labor union, should create no conflict of interests. The distinguishing factor in your inquiry is that the commissioner is a member of the same parent union as the paid firefighters with whom he must negotiate union contracts as a member of the Eastchester board of fire commissioners. You have explained that on each of the 26 annual paydays there is a payroll deduction of $13.50 from each of the Eastchester career firefighters for payment of union dues, which goes to the local

2
and then the local redistributes a portion of the dues to the national union. We see no basis for a conflict of interest under these circumstances. The commissioners have no control over the amount of dues going to the local and the portion going to the national union except through their control of the number of paid firefighters. The commissioner belongs to a different local than that of the paid firefighters with whom he negotiates union contracts. You have informed us that the national union has many locals. Significantly, you indicated that the cities in Westchester County look to each other for comparisons of firefighter terms and conditions of employment. Thus, the Eastchester contract would not necessarily serve as a model for Mount Vernon firefighters. His membership in the same national union under these circumstances creates a remote, if any, incentive to act in violation of the public interest. We conclude that a commissioner of the Eastchester Fire District does not have a conflict of interests as a result of his private employment as a firefighter where he is a member of the same national union as the paid firefighters with whom he must negotiate union contracts on behalf of the fire district. 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