If a New York town supervisor has a son in the town police department, can she vote on the police contract or the police budget?

Plain-English summary

The Town of Southold's town supervisor had a son who was a sergeant in the town police department. The town attorney asked the AG how far the supervisor's recusal obligation extended. The AG drew a line: recuse from decisions that affect the son's pay or terms of employment, but participate in everything else.

The AG started by pointing out that New York state law does not bar relatives from serving in the same municipal government. So the family relationship by itself does not disqualify the supervisor. What does require recusal is participating in matters in which the supervisor has a personal (rather than purely governmental) stake. The terms and conditions of her son's employment qualify. Negotiating and voting on a police contract that would set her son's pay, leave, and benefits is squarely in the recuse-yourself bucket.

But once the contract is set, the supervisor can deliberate on the town budget as a whole. The other parts of the police department's budget are governmental matters in which she can participate freely. Litigation strategy in a pending preferred-list hiring lawsuit, and future hiring of police officers that the town attorney represented would not affect the son's pay or terms, are also areas she can participate in.

The AG declined to opine on one specific question: if the chief of police retires during the supervisor's term and the replacement decision could affect sergeant positions (including the son's), can the supervisor participate? The AG said those facts were too speculative and recommended the supervisor seek an advisory opinion from the local board of ethics under General Municipal Law § 808.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1996. 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 doesn't the family relationship by itself disqualify the supervisor?
Because New York law does not prohibit relatives from serving in the same local government. What triggers a recusal duty is the existence of a personal stake in a specific matter, not the existence of a family member elsewhere in the government. So the supervisor remains in office and votes on most things; the recusal duty kicks in for specific matters that affect her son.

Where is the line between a "personal" and a "governmental" stake?
The AG used the police contract negotiation as the clearest example of a personal stake: the supervisor's son's pay, leave, and benefits would be set by the contract. The supervisor has a direct financial interest in her son's compensation. By contrast, the overall town budget after the contract is set, decisions about hiring officers who are not her son, and litigation about an unrelated officer's hiring are governmental in character. They do not turn on her son's pay or terms.

Does the husband's retirement status matter?
The opinion mentions the supervisor's husband as a retired police officer in the same town. The AG did not treat this as a separate trigger. A retired officer's connection to the active force is generally too attenuated to create the kind of personal stake that compels recusal. The active sergeant son is the relevant tie.

What about the chief of police retirement question?
The AG passed on this one because the facts were too speculative. If the chief retires and the replacement decision actually does affect the son's position, the supervisor would face a recusal question then. The AG suggested asking the local or county board of ethics under General Municipal Law § 808 when the situation becomes concrete.

Does the AG's analysis rely on the local code of ethics or on general principles?
Both. The AG references General Municipal Law § 806(1), which requires each local government to adopt a code of ethics, and notes that the code should provide standards for officers and employees on disclosure of interests and on conduct. But the AG also draws on a 1986 informal opinion (1986 Op Atty Gen (Inf) 101) recognizing the broader principle that members of local legislative bodies should recuse from actions concerning the salary, terms, and conditions of employment of family members in the same local government. The recusal duty is rooted in that broader principle as well as in whatever the local code says.

Can the supervisor vote on the budget after recusing from the contract negotiation?
Yes. The AG was explicit: once the contract has been approved and defines the terms and conditions of her son's employment, the supervisor is not limited in deliberating on the town budget overall. The contract negotiation is the personal-stake event. The downstream budget vote allocates funds based on a contract she did not vote on, which the AG concluded was a governmental matter she could participate in.

Background and statutory framework

The relevant statutes were:

General Municipal Law § 806(1), which required each local government (including towns) to adopt a code of ethics setting standards of conduct for officers and employees, including standards on disclosure of interests in legislation and on official and private-sector conduct.

General Municipal Law § 808, which authorized local boards of ethics to render advisory opinions to officers and employees.

The AG's analysis layered these statutes on top of the general fiduciary principle that public officers must exercise their duties solely in the public interest, avoid circumstances that compromise impartiality, and avoid the appearance of impropriety. The AG had previously concluded (in 1986 Op Atty Gen (Inf) 101) that members of local legislative bodies should recuse from actions concerning the salary, terms, and conditions of employment of family members employed by the same local government.

The opinion is a workmanlike application of those principles to specific facts. Recuse on the contract; participate in the rest.

Source

• Landing page: https://ag.ny.gov/libraries-documents/opinions/opinions-year
• Original PDF: https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/I_96-17_pw.pdf

Original opinion text

GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW §§ 806(1), 808.

The town supervisor must recuse herself from taking actions regarding the town police department which affect the terms and conditions of employment of her son, a sergeant in the department.

May 9, 1996

Laury L. Dowd, Esq.
Town Attorney
Town of Southold
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971

Informal Opinion No. 96-17

Dear Ms. Dowd:

You have inquired as to the extent to which the town supervisor can be involved in decisions regarding the town police department where her son is a sergeant and her husband is a retired police officer.

You have explained that the town currently is negotiating a contract with the police department. Items being negotiated are the power to supplement the current force with part-time officers, increased leave time, increased salaries, and additional benefits. Your first question is whether the supervisor may participate in deliberations on this contract and whether, once the contract has been approved, she may make decisions regarding the town budget as a whole.

State law does not prohibit persons from serving in the same governmental unit because they are related by consanguinity or family. Therefore, the employment of the supervisor's son in the police department and the status of her husband as a retired officer do not alone disqualify the supervisor from acting.

We note that the governing body of each local government, including a town, is required to adopt a code of ethics setting forth the standards of conduct reasonably expected of its officers and employees. General Municipal Law § 806(1). The code should provide standards for officers and employees with respect to disclosure of interests in legislation and regarding their official and private sector conduct. Id. You should review your code of ethics to determine whether there are applicable provisions.

Public officers have responsibility to exercise their official duties solely in the public interest. 1986 Op Atty Gen (Inf) 101. They should avoid circumstances which compromise their ability to make impartial judgments and must avoid the appearance of impropriety in order to maintain public confidence in government. Id.

We have concluded that members of local legislative bodies should recuse themselves from taking part in any actions concerning the salary and terms and conditions of employment of family members employed by the same local government. 1986 Op Atty Gen (Inf) 101. These are matters in which the legislator would have a personal, rather than governmental, interest. Thus, it seems clear that your town supervisor should recuse herself from negotiations and action on the police benefits contract.

Once the contract has been approved, defining the terms and conditions of employment of her son, we believe that the supervisor is not limited in deliberating on the town budget. Other areas of the police department's budget are governmental matters in which the supervisor may participate freely.

You also have stated that the chief of police may retire during the supervisor's term and that his replacement may affect the sergeant positions. You ask whether the supervisor would be disqualified from participating in this appointment. In this instance, the facts are too speculative and undefined for us to give you a view. You may want to present this question to the town or county board of ethics, which can determine the facts and render an opinion. See, General Municipal Law § 808.

Finally, you indicate that the town currently is in litigation regarding the hiring of a police officer from the civil service preferred list. You have asked whether the supervisor may participate in decisions regarding the litigation, and if, generally, she may participate in future hiring of police officers. These items fall under the category of governmental decisions, which you have indicated will have no effect on the salary and terms and conditions of employment of the supervisor's son. Therefore, she may take part in these matters.

We conclude that the town supervisor must recuse herself from taking actions regarding the town police department which affect the terms and conditions of employment of her son, a sergeant in the department.

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