Can a county board of supervisors member run a private septic-installation business when his work is inspected by the county employees whose pay and conditions he sets?

Plain-English summary

A member of the Seneca County Board of Supervisors ran a private business installing septic systems for private homeowners. His installations were inspected by county code enforcement and health department staff. The County Attorney asked whether that created a conflict of interests.

The AG said it did, and pointed to two specific pressure points. First, the Board of Supervisors fixes employee compensation and regulates terms and conditions of employment for the very county staff whose job is to review his septic work. A supervisor running a business reviewed by people whose paychecks he controls is at risk of letting his commercial interest tilt his votes on personnel matters. Second, the relationship runs the other way: county inspectors may be reluctant to call out problems with installation work done by a board member who can vote on their salaries and benefits. Either dynamic compromises impartial public service.

The AG emphasized that even the appearance of impropriety is a problem in this context. The conclusion was not that the supervisor was actually corrupt or that the inspectors were actually compromised, but that the structural conflict was enough to require him to stop the private installations. The opinion also pointed the county to General Municipal Law § 808, which authorizes the county to set up a board of ethics that renders advisory opinions to officers and employees in this kind of gray area.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1998. 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

Could the supervisor keep doing private septic work if he recused himself from personnel matters affecting the inspectors?

The opinion does not endorse a recusal-only fix. The conflict ran in two directions, and recusal addresses only the supervisor's side. Even if he sat out every vote that touched the inspectors' pay or conditions, those inspectors would still know that he is a board member who could vote on their employment in other ways, which is the chilling effect the AG flagged. The cleaner course was to stop the private installations.

Did the AG find that the supervisor had done anything wrong?

No. The opinion treats the question as prospective and structural. The point is that the arrangement created an appearance of impropriety, which is enough under General Municipal Law principles to require change, regardless of whether any specific inspection had been compromised.

What did General Municipal Law § 808 do in this analysis?

Section 808 authorizes counties to establish a board of ethics that can issue advisory opinions to county officers and employees on questions of private employment, recusal, and conflicts. The AG flagged it as the local channel for handling close cases, with the AG's own informal opinion as a backstop when no county ethics board has weighed in.

Why do County Law §§ 204, 205, and 207 matter here?

They give the Board of Supervisors the power to establish positions, fix compensation, and regulate terms and conditions of employment for county workers. The AG's reasoning rests on the board's broad personnel power: a member with that authority over the very employees who review his private work has too much leverage in both directions for the relationship to be neutral.

Could a board of supervisors member run a septic business at all?

Yes, in principle. The conflict the AG identified was specifically with installations subject to county inspector review. A supervisor doing septic work in a different jurisdiction, or work that no county inspector touched, would not have presented the same problem.

Background and statutory framework

New York's conflict-of-interests framework for local officials sits in General Municipal Law Article 18 (interests in contracts), the common-law doctrines applied in opinions of the AG, and statutory provisions in the County Law that govern the structure of county government. The AG's conflict opinions in the 1990s repeatedly emphasized two principles. First, that public officials should avoid private employment that compromises their ability to make impartial judgments solely in the public interest. Second, that even the appearance of impropriety should be avoided, because perception of fairness is what sustains public confidence in government.

This opinion is an application of those principles to a small-town fact pattern. The supervisor was not accused of taking money to influence inspections or of pressuring inspectors directly. The conflict was inherent in the role and the side business, and that was enough.

Citations

• County Law §§ 204, 205, 207 (Board of Supervisors authority to establish positions, fix compensation, and regulate employment conditions).
• General Municipal Law § 808 (authority for counties to establish a board of ethics).
• Op Atty Gen (Inf) No. 97-35 (general principle that public officials avoid private employment that compromises impartial judgment).
• Op Atty Gen (Inf) No. 95-35 (board's personnel-authority analysis).
• Op Atty Gen (Inf) No. 89-58 (avoidance-of-appearance-of-impropriety principle).

Source

• Landing page: https://ag.ny.gov/libraries-documents/opinions/opinions-year
• Original PDF: https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/I_98-30_pw.pdf

Original opinion text

COUNTY LAW §§ 204, 205, 207; GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW § 808.
A conflict of interests arises when a member of the County
Board of Supervisors, acting in his private capacity, installs
septic systems for private individuals and the systems are
subject to review by county employees.
June 29, 1998

Robert E. Swinehart, Esq.
County Attorney
County of Seneca
P. O. Box 299
Seneca Falls, NY 13148-0299

Informal Opinion
No. 98-30

Dear Mr. Swinehart:
You have asked whether there is a conflict of interests when
a member of the County Board of Supervisors, acting in his
private capacity, installs septic systems for private
individuals. You note that county code enforcement and health
department personnel review such installations.
In our view, this individual should not be performing
installations that are reviewed by county personnel. On numerous
occasions we have stated that public officials should avoid
private employment that compromises their ability to make
impartial judgments solely in the public interest. Even the
appearance of impropriety should be avoided in order to maintain
public confidence in government. Op Atty Gen (Inf) Nos. 97-35,
89-58. Here, the Supervisor is a member of the County Board of
Supervisors, which is empowered to establish positions of
employment within the County, fix the compensation of all
employees and regulate other terms and conditions of employment.
Op Atty Gen (Inf) No. 95-35; County Law §§ 204, 205, 207. The
Supervisor's private employment could influence his judgment with
regard to the terms and conditions of employment of individuals
who, as part of their jobs, review his installations. The
employees also may be reluctant to exercise independent judgment
regarding installation work performed by a Supervisor who is
empowered to regulate the terms and conditions of their
employment.
We conclude that a conflict of interests arises when a
county supervisor, acting in his private capacity, installs
septic systems for private individuals and the systems are
subject to review by county employees. We note that questions

2
about the propriety of private employment also may be presented
to the County Board of Ethics for an advisory opinion. Under
section 808 of the General Municipal Law, the governing body of
any county may establish a board of ethics to render advisory
opinions to officers and employees.
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,

SIOBHAN S. CRARY
Assistant Attorney General