Can off-duty employees of a New York public water authority moonlight as plumbers installing private service lines that connect to the authority's water mains?

Plain-English summary

The Suffolk County Water Authority is a public benefit corporation that operates the public water supply and distribution system in Suffolk County. When the Authority extends water mains in streets to serve private homes, homeowners must hire a private plumber to install a service line from the home to the property edge at the street. Authority employees inspect and approve the service line before it can be connected to the public water main. Authority employees themselves perform the actual hookups.

The Authority's counsel had a real problem on his hands. Authority employees were moonlighting as private plumbers, installing service lines for homeowners while off duty. Some of these employees, in their day jobs, also inspected service line installations by other plumbers. Worse, some employees had inside knowledge of where and when the Authority planned to extend mains, which gave them a competitive edge in soliciting private installation business.

Counsel ran the question past the AG. Two statutes that might have applied (Public Officers Law § 74 ethics standards for state employees and certain public benefit corporations; General Municipal Law § 806 codes of ethics for municipal employees) did not reach the Authority, leaving the question to the AG's general conflict-of-interests doctrine.

The AG said the moonlighting practice should stop. Public officials should avoid private employment that compromises their ability to make impartial judgments solely in the public interest, and even the appearance of impropriety should be avoided to maintain public confidence in government (citing Op Atty Gen (Inf) No. 93-36). Those principles apply to public benefit corporations performing essential governmental services, including the Authority.

Several specific risks made the situation untenable. First, public review of private plumbing work raised the question whether the Authority was applying the same standard to its own employees' off-duty work as to other plumbers' work. Second, even when a colleague performed the inspection of the off-duty employee's work, the collegial relationship undercut credibility. Third, an "egregious" version of the conflict was already plausible: Authority employees using internal main-extension information for private gain, or inspecting work by their private-sector competitors.

The AG's bottom line, regardless of whether a given employee personally did Authority inspections, is that Authority employees should not be in the private-service-line-installation business when the Authority must approve those lines before connection. The conflict ran through the role itself, not through case-by-case task assignments.

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

Did Public Officers Law § 74 or General Municipal Law § 806 apply to the Authority?

No. The AG noted that § 74 covers state employees and certain public benefit corporations but not the Suffolk County Water Authority, and § 806 codes of ethics cover municipal employees but not the Authority either. That left the question to AG common-law conflict-of-interests doctrine.

Could an Authority employee install service lines outside Suffolk County?

The opinion does not address that, but the AG's reasoning suggests yes. The conflict here was specifically the Authority's approval-and-connection role for service lines in its own service area. Work outside that service area would not present the same approval conflict.

What about employees in non-inspection roles (e.g., billing or administration)?

The AG addressed this point directly. The recommendation applies "regardless of their Authority duties." An employee who never personally inspects service lines still has the inside-information problem and the colleague-inspection problem. The AG drew the line at the employer-employee relationship and the agency review structure, not at the specific job description.

Could the Authority adopt a code of ethics covering this?

Yes, and that would be the natural follow-up. The Authority is not directly bound by Public Officers Law § 74 or General Municipal Law § 806, but it can voluntarily adopt analogous standards. Many public authorities do. The AG opinion is the substantive starting point; the formal policy enforcement would happen through internal ethics rules.

Does this opinion bar moonlighting more broadly?

No. The conflict here was specifically about private work that the public employer must inspect or approve. The AG opinion does not bar all moonlighting by public-authority employees. Off-duty work that does not intersect with the employer's review function (driving for a delivery company, working retail, freelancing as a tutor) is a different question.

Background and statutory framework

The Suffolk County Water Authority is one of several large public benefit corporations operating water systems in New York. As public benefit corporations, they are separate legal entities from the State and not always subject to the ethics statutes that bind State employees or municipal employees. The 1998 ethics regime had Public Officers Law § 74 for State employees and certain public benefit corporations, and General Municipal Law § 806 for municipal employees. Whether a particular public benefit corporation's employees fell under either depended on the specifics of the enabling statute.

The AG's general conflict-of-interests doctrine fills the gap. It rests on common-law principles refined through AG opinions: officials must avoid private employment that compromises impartial public judgment, and they must also avoid the appearance of impropriety. The opinion in Op Atty Gen (Inf) No. 93-36 articulated the underlying principles for situations like this one.

The opinion's most important contribution is its appearance-of-impropriety reasoning: even if no specific employee actually let a private interest distort his public work, the collegial structure of the inspection and the inside-information dynamics created enough perception risk to bar the practice at the policy level.

Citations

• General Municipal Law § 806 (code of ethics for municipal employees).
• Public Officers Law § 74 (ethics standards for State employees and certain public benefit corporations).
• Op Atty Gen (Inf) No. 93-36 (avoidance of private employment compromising impartial judgment; 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_98-51_pw.pdf

Original opinion text

GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW § 806; PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW § 74.
Employees of the Suffolk County Water Authority should not
accept off-duty employment to install private service lines for
homeowners where those service lines have to be approved by the
Authority prior to connection with Authority mains.
November 5, 1998
Timothy J. Hopkins, Esq.
Suffolk County Water Authority
4060 Sunrise Highway
Oakdale, NY 11769-0901

Informal Opinion
No. 98-51

Dear Mr. Hopkins
You have asked whether a conflict of interests occurs under
the following circumstances. The Suffolk County Water Authority
(Authority), a public benefit corporation, operates a public
water supply and distribution system in Suffolk County under
provisions of the Public Authorities Law. You have informed us
that when the Authority extends water mains in streets to serve
private homes, homeowners are required to hire a private plumber
to install a service line from their home to the edge of their
property at the street. Service lines are required to be
inspected and approved by an Authority employee before the line
can be connected to the public water main. The actual hookups
are performed by Authority employees.
Your letter indicates that a number of Authority employees
while off duty, have been providing private plumbing services
to homeowners by installing water service lines. You state that
there may be instances where Authority employees have advance
notice of the location and the timing of new public water main
installations by the Authority and could utilize this inside
information to obtain private water line installation business.
Neither section 74 of the Public Officers Law, providing ethics
standards for State employees and employees of certain public
benefit corporations, nor General Municipal Law § 806, providing
for codes of ethics for municipal employees, is applicable to the
Authority.
You inquire whether it would be an illegal conflict of
interests for Authority employees to provide these private
plumbing services to homeowners when the same employees, on
behalf of the Authority, also inspect the work of other private
plumbers and/or fellow employees engaged in private plumbing
work. Also, you inquire whether these private plumbing services

2
by off-duty Authority employees are improper if the employees do
not perform any inspections of private plumbing work on behalf of
the Authority.
In our view, regardless of their Authority duties, employees
of the Authority should not accept off-duty employment to install
private lines for connection with Authority mains. Public
officials should avoid private employment that compromises the
ability of public officials to make impartial judgments solely in
the public interest. Even the appearance of impropriety should
be avoided to maintain public confidence in government.
Op Atty Gen (Inf) No. 93-36. These principles apply to the
Authority, a public benefit corporation performing an essential
governmental service. The question reasonably may arise in the
eyes of the public whether private plumbing work performed by
Authority employees is held to the same standards of review by
the Authority as would otherwise be applied. Review of their
private plumbing work by colleagues raises these questions.
Certainly, egregious conflicts would occur when information
obtained as public employees is used for private gain and where
Authority employees engaging in installation of private service
lines inspect service line installations by their private sector
competitors.
We conclude that employees of the Suffolk County Water
Authority should not be employed off duty installing private
service lines for homeowners where those service lines are
approved by the Authority prior to connection with Authority
mains.
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