Can a NY town shorten the supervisor's term back from four years to two years after voters approved the longer term?

Subject

A town board may reduce its supervisor's term from four to two years by local law subject to mandatory referendum

Plain-English summary

The Town of Thompson had adopted a resolution under Town Law § 24-a to extend the supervisor's term from two years to four years. The resolution was subject to a referendum. The town attorney asked: if voters approve the extension, can a future town board reverse course and reduce the term back to two years, and what procedure would they need to use?

The AG said yes and explained the procedure.

Town Law § 24-a is the statute that allows a town board to lengthen elective town officer terms to four years through resolution and referendum. But it is silent on reductions. The AG could not find a Town Law provision authorizing a return from four years to two years through that statutory mechanism.

That silence did not block the move. It just meant Town Law § 24-a was the wrong tool. The right tool was the town's home-rule authority.

Municipal Home Rule Law § 10(1)(ii)(a)(1) gives local governments power to enact local laws relating to the terms of office of their officers and employees. The local law has to be consistent with the Constitution and general state laws. The Town Law's silence on reductions to two years means there is no inconsistency to worry about. The AG also noted that towns are authorized to amend or supersede provisions of the Town Law dealing with subjects that fall within their home-rule authority (§ 10(1)(ii)(d)(3)). So even if there were some implicit conflict, the supersession power would let the town override it.

Procedurally, a local law that reduces an elected officer's term is subject to a mandatory referendum under Municipal Home Rule Law § 23(2)(e). So the town board adopts a local law (not a § 24-a resolution this time, a local law) reducing the term, and then submits it to the voters. Voters approve or reject.

One important constraint: the reduction is prospective only. It cannot shorten the current incumbent's term mid-term. The AG cited People ex rel. Eldred v Palmer, 154 NY 133 (1897), and earlier AG opinions for that principle. So a sitting four-year supervisor finishes the four-year term; the new two-year term takes effect at the next election after the local law is adopted and approved.

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

Why couldn't the town use Town Law § 24-a in reverse?

Because § 24-a is one-directional: it authorizes extending a term to four years. The statute does not say anything about going back to two years. Reading it to authorize reductions would stretch the text. The AG instead pointed to the more general home-rule authority that does cover terms of office in both directions.

Why a mandatory referendum?

Municipal Home Rule Law § 23(2)(e) requires a mandatory referendum for local laws that change the term of an elective officer. That's a structural protection: voters' choice of representative includes choosing a person to serve a specific length of time. Changing that length without voter approval would shortcut the democratic process.

Can the term change apply to the sitting supervisor?

No, only prospectively. People ex rel. Eldred v Palmer is the foundational case. The sitting officer earned the right to serve the term the voters elected them for; cutting it short would undo that election retroactively. The reduction applies to terms elected after the local law takes effect.

What if the town wants to lengthen the term again later?

The town could go back to the § 24-a procedure, or potentially use the home-rule authority again. Either way, voter approval through referendum would be required, and the change would be prospective.

What's the practical difference between a Town Law § 24-a resolution and a Municipal Home Rule Law § 10 local law?

A § 24-a action is a resolution (a less formal legislative vehicle) operating under specific Town Law authority for the limited purpose of extending terms. A local law under § 10 is a more formal legislative act passed under the town's general home-rule power. Both can be subject to referendum, but local laws are the broader vehicle and the one that fits when Town Law silence creates a gap.

Statutory framework

Town Law § 24-a authorizes a town board to extend an elective town officer's term to four years by resolution and referendum. The statute does not address reductions.

Municipal Home Rule Law § 10(1)(ii)(a)(1) authorizes local governments to legislate on the terms of office of their officers and employees.

Municipal Home Rule Law § 10(1)(ii)(d)(3) authorizes towns to amend or supersede provisions of the Town Law on subjects within their home-rule authority.

Municipal Home Rule Law § 23(2)(e) requires a mandatory referendum for local laws changing the term of an elective officer.

People ex rel. Eldred v Palmer, 154 NY 133 (1897), establishes that term-of-office changes are prospective only and cannot shorten an incumbent's current term.

Source

• Landing page: https://ag.ny.gov/libraries-documents/opinions/opinions-year
• Original PDF: https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/I_95-50_pw.pdf

Original opinion text

MUNICIPAL HOME RULE LAW §§ 10(1)(ii)(a)(1) and (d)(3), 23(2)(e); TOWN LAW § 24-a.

A town board may reduce the term of its supervisor from four to two years by local law subject to mandatory referendum.

October 25, 1995

Theodore Drew, Esq.
Town Attorney
Town of Thompson
P. O. Drawer 1069
Monticello, NY 12701

Informal Opinion
No. 95-50

Dear Mr. Drew:

You have indicated that your town has adopted a resolution, subject to referendum, to increase the term of office of the supervisor from two to four years. Action was taken under section 24-a of the Town Law. You have asked, if the electors of the town approve this change, whether the town board at a future date can take action to return to the two-year term and what procedure should be followed in order to reduce the term.

Section 24-a of the Town Law authorizes a town board to adopt a resolution, subject to referendum, to increase the term of an elective town officer to four years. We have not found nor are we aware of any provision of the Town Law which authorizes a reduction of a four-year term to two years.

In our view, the town board may enact a local law to reduce the term of the supervisor. Local governments, including towns, are authorized to enact local laws, which are consistent with the Constitution and general State laws, in relation to the terms of office of their officers and employees. Municipal Home Rule Law § 10(1)(ii)(a)(1). In that the Town Law is silent in relation to the reduction of the term of elected town officers, we see no inconsistency between such a local law and provisions of any general State law. In any event, we note that towns by local law are authorized to amend or supersede provisions of the Town Law dealing with subjects that fall within the scope of their home rule authority. Id., § 10(1)(ii)(d)(3). A local law reducing the term of an elective officer is subject to a mandatory referendum. Municipal Home Rule Law § 23(2)(e). Any reduction cannot be applied to current terms but must be prospective. People ex rel. Eldred v Palmer, 154 NY 133 (1897); 1976 Op Atty Gen (Inf) 110, 112; 1974 Op Atty Gen (Inf) 75, 77.

We conclude that a town board may reduce the term of its supervisor from four to two years by local law subject to mandatory referendum.

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