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 opinion addresses whether this local law requires a mandatory referendum. It does not decide any other potential challenge to the change.

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?

The opinion quotes § 23(2)(k)'s requirement for local laws relating to the membership or terms of office of a city civil service commission. It does not analyze a law abolishing such a commission. Geneva had a personnel officer, not a city commission.

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. Municipal Home Rule Law § 10(1)(ii)(c)(1) is the authority cited for the Charter amendment. Municipal Home Rule Law § 20 supplies the local-law hearing procedure, which the opinion says can satisfy Civil Service Law § 16(3). Municipal Home Rule Law § 23(2)(k) covers the city civil service commission's membership and terms of office.

The AG read § 23(2)(k) as covering only the matters it specifically mentions. Because Geneva had a personnel officer rather than a city commission, the proposed change fell outside that referendum requirement.

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