Does a village clerk-treasurer have a conflict of interest when his own tenant applies for federal rent assistance through a village-administered HUD program?

Plain-English summary

The Village of Farmingdale acts as a public housing authority under contract with the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. Rather than running the rent subsidy program in-house, Farmingdale contracted with the Nassau County Office of Housing and Intergovernmental Affairs to take applications, determine eligibility, hold the federal money, and pay landlords. The Village Clerk-Treasurer owned a building. His tenant applied for the subsidy. The Village Attorney asked whether that creates a State-law conflict.

The AG concluded there appeared to be no Article 18 of the General Municipal Law conflict on those facts. The analysis follows a prior opinion about an arrangement involving a mayor's spouse. The clerk-treasurer did not take applications or decide eligibility; the county office would pay the subsidy only if it found the federal requirements met. The clerk-treasurer also lacked authority to enter village contracts, so the AG saw no apparent opportunity for him to influence the choice of program administrator.

The AG also suggested that the village attorney review the local code of ethics to see whether the tenant's application was consistent with that code's standards.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1999. 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

What is Article 18 of the General Municipal Law about?

The opinion mentions Article 18 because it governs municipal conflicts of interest. It cites General Municipal Law § 806 when recommending review of the village's local code of ethics. The opinion does not analyze the article's other provisions.

Why did the structure matter so much?

The county office, not village staff, reviewed eligibility under federal regulations and paid the landlord after approving an application. The clerk-treasurer could not influence the award or select the county office as administrator.

Did the AG say everything was fine?

The AG said the county-administered arrangement appeared to present no conflict under State law. It suggested that the village attorney separately check whether the tenant's application met the local ethics code's standards.

What if the village ran the program itself?

The opinion does not decide that scenario. It relies on the county office's role in reviewing applications and paying landlords, the village's lack of a role in selecting recipients, and the clerk-treasurer's lack of contracting authority.

Does this apply to Section 8 generally?

The opinion addresses the Farmingdale arrangement as described to the AG. It does not decide other subsidy programs or administrative structures.

Background and statutory framework

The AG cited General Municipal Law § 806 when advising the village attorney to review the local ethics code. The opinion does not interpret the code itself.

Farmingdale was a public housing authority under an annual HUD contract and had contracted with Nassau County's housing office to administer the program. The AG assessed that specific arrangement.

Citations

• General Municipal Law § 806 (mandatory local code of ethics for municipalities).
• Op Atty Gen (Inf) No. 92-15 (mayor's spouse, tenants applying for HUD subsidy administered by community action agency; same no-conflict analysis).

Source

• Landing page: https://ag.ny.gov/libraries-documents/opinions/opinions-year
• Original PDF: https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/I_99-14_pw.pdf

Original opinion text

GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW § 806.
There is no conflict of interests when a tenant who rents property from the Village Clerk-Treasurer applies for a rent subsidy through HUD, given that a county agency administers the HUD program under contract with the Village.

May 5, 1999
Patrick S. Mielo, Esq.
Village Attorney
Village of Farmingdale
P. O. Box 220
Farmingdale, New York 11735

Informal Opinion
No. 99-14

Dear Mr. Mielo:
You have asked whether a conflict of interests exists when the Village Clerk-Treasurer owns a building and rents to a tenant who has applied to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") for housing assistance through a Village program. You state that the circumstances underlying your inquiry are similar to those discussed in Op Atty Gen No. 92-15, where we concluded that there was no conflict of interests when the village had contracted with a community action agency to administer the housing program and tenants of a building owned by the mayor's spouse applied for HUD funds. Your Village Clerk-Treasurer has described the HUD funding mechanism in the Village as follows: the Village is a public housing authority under annual contract with HUD. The Village in turn has contracted with the Nassau County Office of Housing & Intergovernmental Affairs ("County Office") to administer housing programs funded through HUD. The County Office is responsible for reviewing the eligibility of applicants for aid under Federal regulations. Once the application of a tenant within the Village is approved, HUD pays rent subsidy money to the County Office, which holds the money in a separate account for the Village. The County Office then pays the money directly from the Village's account to the landlord. The Village has no role in selecting applicants or determining who receives money. In our prior opinion, we concluded that there appeared to be no conflict of interests under State law when the tenants of the mayor's spouse received HUD funds because the mayor had no role in determining who received funds under the housing program. The mayor did not take applications for program participation or

2
review applicants to determine their eligibility. We concluded that this arrangement did not appear to violate article 18 of the General Municipal Law, but also recommended that the Village Attorney review the local code of ethics to determine whether the situation was consistent with the standards found in the code. Op Atty Gen No. 92-15. The same rationale should apply here. The Village Clerk-Treasurer does not accept applications for HUD funding or determine which applicants are eligible. The Clerk-Treasurer, therefore, is not in a position to influence the award of HUD money to his tenants. Rent subsidy money will be paid to him by the County Office only if that office determines that all Federal requirements are met. The Clerk-Treasurer also does not have the authority to enter into contracts on behalf of the Village, so there appears to be no opportunity for him to influence the selection of the agency that administers the HUD program for the Village. As in our prior opinion, we suggest that you review the Village's local code of ethics to determine whether the tenant's application for HUD funding is consistent with the standards found in the code. See, General Municipal Law § 806. 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