If a New York city wants to scrap its city personnel officer and have the county civil service commission take over, does that change require a public vote?

Plain-English summary

The City of Geneva administered the Civil Service Law through a city Personnel Officer, whose authority sat in the City Charter. The city wanted to switch to having Ontario County's Civil Service Commission take over that work. Because the existing arrangement was anchored in the Charter, the switch needed a Charter amendment by local law. The City Attorney asked whether that amendment had to go to the voters.

Municipal Home Rule Law § 23(2)(k) requires a mandatory referendum on a city local law that changes "membership or terms of office of the civil service commission of the city." The AG read that language as narrow. Geneva did not have a city civil service commission; it had a personnel officer. Abolishing the personnel officer and transferring his functions to the county commission did not affect the membership or terms of office of the city commission, because the city did not have a commission. Since only the specifically enumerated matters in § 23(2)(k) trigger the mandatory referendum requirement, the local law fell outside the trigger.

Two doctrinal points kept the analysis clean. First, the AG held it makes no difference whether the underlying authority for the change came from the existing Charter provision under Civil Service Law § 15(3) or from the elective transition mechanism in § 16(1)(b). Section 16 lets a city's legislative body authorize withdrawal from its current form of civil service administration and election of another form, including administration under the county's civil service commission. Either path gets to the same point and neither one triggers § 23(2)(k).

Second, Civil Service Law § 16(3) requires a public hearing on reasonable notice before a city changes its form of civil service administration. The AG observed that the procedure for adopting a local law under Municipal Home Rule Law § 20 also includes a hearing requirement, which can be used to satisfy § 16(3) in a single process. Mandatory referendum and public hearing are different procedural devices; the city had to comply with the hearing requirement, but it did not have to put the change to a popular vote.

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

Why doesn't § 23(2)(k) catch the abolition of a city personnel officer?

The text reaches changes "relating to the civil service commission of the city," and the AG's reading is that only specifically enumerated matters trigger the referendum requirement. A city personnel officer is a different statutory role from a city civil service commission. The personnel-officer position is not within § 23(2)(k)'s text, so its abolition does not trigger the requirement.

Could a city's home-rule choice to switch civil service forms be challenged?

The AG's opinion addresses the referendum question only. Standard challenges to local-law enactment (procedural irregularity, ultra vires, conflict with State law) would be available in court. The point of this opinion is that the absence of a referendum, by itself, is not a defect.

What forms of civil service administration are available under § 15?

Section 15 lists the options: municipal civil service commissions, personnel officers, regional commissions, and regional personnel officers (the last two by agreement of two or more municipalities). Section 15(3) preserves a city's pre-existing form unless the city affirmatively changes it; § 16 sets out the change procedure.

Does the hearing under Civil Service Law § 16(3) have to be a separate event?

Not necessarily. The AG observed that the public hearing requirement under § 16(3) can be satisfied by the local-law-adoption hearing under Municipal Home Rule Law § 20, which is the standard procedural step for adopting a local law. Combining the two avoids duplicative process.

What if Geneva had had a city civil service commission instead of a personnel officer?

Then the analysis would change. A local law that altered the membership or terms of office of a city civil service commission, including by abolishing the commission itself, would fall within § 23(2)(k) and would trigger a mandatory referendum. The AG's reasoning explicitly turns on the absence of a city commission in Geneva.

Background and statutory framework

The State Civil Service Law gives municipalities several forms of civil service administration to choose from and a procedure for moving between forms. Section 15 lists the options. Section 15(3) preserves a city's pre-existing form unless it actively changes. Section 16(1)(b) gives a city's legislative body authority to authorize withdrawal from the current form and election of another, including administration under the county's commission. Section 16(3) requires a public hearing on reasonable notice before the change takes effect.

Municipal Home Rule Law Article 4 governs how local laws are made. Section 10(1)(ii)(c)(1) is the substantive authority for cities to amend their charters by local law on personnel matters. Section 20 sets out the procedure for local-law adoption, including the public hearing requirement that can satisfy § 16(3). Section 23 lists the cases in which a city local law is subject to a mandatory referendum; § 23(2)(k) names the city civil service commission's membership and terms of office.

The AG's reading of § 23(2)(k) as a narrow trigger fits its broader textualist approach to mandatory-referendum statutes: the Legislature said which categories of local laws need voter approval, and only the listed categories qualify. Expanding the list by analogy would shift the line between elected-body and voter authority for routine civil-service restructuring.

Citations

• Civil Service Law § 15; § 15(3) (forms of civil service administration; continuation of existing form).
• Civil Service Law § 16; § 16(1)(b); § 16(3) (change procedure; election of administration under county commission; public hearing requirement).
• Municipal Home Rule Law § 10(1)(ii)(c)(1) (authority for cities to amend charters by local law).
• Municipal Home Rule Law § 20 (local-law adoption procedure, including hearing).
• Municipal Home Rule Law § 23(2)(k) (mandatory referendum for changes to city civil service commission membership or terms).

Source

• Landing page: https://ag.ny.gov/libraries-documents/opinions/opinions-year
• Original PDF: https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/I_98-43_pw.pdf

Original opinion text

CIVIL SERVICE LAW §§ 15, 16; MUNICIPAL HOME RULE LAW, ART 4,
§§ 10(1)(ii)(c)(1), 20, 23(2)(k).
A local law enacted by a city to change the form of
administration of the Civil Service Law from a city personnel
officer to the county civil service commission is not subject to
a mandatory referendum.

November 2, 1998
A. Clark Cannon, Esq.
City Attorney
City of Geneva
17 Seneca Street, Suite Two
Geneva, NY 14456

Informal Opinion
No. 98-43

Dear Mr. Cannon:
You have stated that the City of Geneva currently has a
Personnel Officer, who under the City Charter is granted
authority to administer the provisions of the Civil Service Law.
Your question is whether a local law amending the Charter to
transfer the responsibilities of the City Personnel Officer to
the County's Civil Service Commission is subject to a mandatory
referendum under section 23(2)(k) of the Municipal Home Rule Law.
Under section 15 of the Civil Service Law, municipalities,
including cities, may select a form of local civil service
administration from several options, including municipal civil
service commissions, personnel officers and administration by a
regional civil service commission or regional personnel officer
through agreement by two or more municipalities. The form of
civil service administration in effect and in operation in any
city or county on the effective date of section 15 is continued.
Id., § 15(3). The legislative body of a city may authorize the
withdrawal of the city from its current form of civil service
administration and elect administration under one of the other
forms or under the jurisdiction of the civil service commission
or personnel officer of the county in which the city is located.
Id., § 16(1)(b). Prior to a change in the form of
administration, the legislative body of the city is required to
conduct a public hearing on reasonable notice. Id., § 16(3).
Since the City of Geneva's current form of administration of
the Civil Service Law through a personnel officer is established
in the City Charter, a change of administration must be
implemented through the amendment of the Charter by local law.
Municipal Home Rule Law § 10(1)(ii)(c)(1); Art 4. A local law

2
enacted by a city which changes a provision of law relating to
the membership or terms of office of the civil service commission
of the city is subject to a mandatory referendum under section
23(2)(k) of the Municipal Home Rule Law. The City of Geneva,
however, has a Personnel Officer, not a Civil Service Commission.
Abolition of the position of Personnel Officer does not fall
within the coverage of section 23(2)(k), which specifically
requires a referendum on a local law ". . . relating to . . . the
civil service commission of the city." In that only specifically
mentioned matters are covered, it is clear that the abolition of
the City's Personnel Officer and transfer of responsibility for
administration of the Civil Service Law to the County's Civil
Service Commission by local law is not subject to a mandatory
referendum. It makes no difference whether the authorization for
this change is a preexisting Charter provision (see, Civil
Service Law § 15[3]) or section 16 of the Civil Service Law.
Municipal Home Rule Law § 23(2)(k) does not require a referendum.
Prior to a change in administration under section 16, a
public hearing on notice must be held. The procedure for
enactment of local laws by a local government also includes a
hearing requirement, which would comply with section 16
(Municipal Home Rule Law § 20).
We conclude that a local law enacted by a city to change the
form of administration of the Civil Service Law from a city
personnel officer to administration by the county under its civil
service commission is not subject to a 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