Can a New York school district adopt a code of ethics that restricts gifts to its officers and employees more strictly than General Municipal Law § 805-a's $75 cap?

Plain-English summary

The Royalton Hartland Central School District asked whether it could write a stricter gift rule into its code of ethics than the General Municipal Law allowed. Specifically, the district wondered if it could lower the $75 limit in § 805-a, or even ban gifts to its officers and employees outright.

The Attorney General's office said yes. General Municipal Law § 805-a sets a statewide floor: no municipal officer or employee may accept a gift of $75 or more under circumstances suggesting an improper influence. School districts are included in the definition of "municipality" under § 800(4), so they are bound by that floor. But § 806, which requires municipalities to adopt codes of ethics, says expressly that codes "may regulate or prescribe conduct which is not expressly prohibited by this article but may not authorize conduct otherwise prohibited." That language allows additions on top of § 805-a, not subtractions from it.

A stricter rule is consistent with the broader purpose of Article 18 of the General Municipal Law: protect the integrity of public officials and public confidence in government. The AG's office added that § 805-a's "could reasonably be inferred" intent test is hard to apply in real cases, and that some behavior permitted under § 805-a could still trigger Penal Law § 200.35 bribery charges depending on facts. A clearer, stricter local rule reduces the chance officers and employees stray into that zone by accident.

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

Q: How strict can a school district get with its gift rule?
A: The opinion gives a flat-out ban on gifts from persons with an official relationship to the district as an example. A district could also lower the $75 threshold to any value, including zero, or define "official relationship" broadly. Whatever the line, it has to be at least as strict as § 805-a, never weaker.

Q: Who must adopt a code of ethics?
A: Every municipality under GML § 806. The definition of "municipality" in § 800(4) includes school districts. The code has to address, at minimum, the categories listed in § 806 (disclosure of interests in legislation, conflicting investments, conflicting outside employment, future employment, and other standards relating to the conduct of officers and employees).

Q: Does a stricter rule create a private cause of action against violators?
A: The opinion does not address remedies. GML Article 18 generally sets standards, and enforcement is typically through disciplinary action by the municipality. The opinion focused on whether stricter substantive rules are permitted, not on how they are enforced.

Q: Can § 805-a's $75 limit ever be relaxed?
A: No. The statute sets a floor on restrictions. Article 18 is one-way: § 806 authorizes local ethics codes that go further than § 805-a, but never less far. Authorizing conduct § 805-a prohibits is expressly off the table.

Background and statutory framework

General Municipal Law Article 18 (sections 800 to 813) sets statewide standards for the conduct of municipal officers and employees, with school districts included by definition. Section 805-a is the gift provision. It prohibits any officer or employee from soliciting, accepting, or receiving a gift of $75 or more under circumstances reasonably suggesting that the gift was meant to influence official duties or was a reward for official action.

Section 806 makes adoption of a code of ethics mandatory and frames the local code's scope. The "may regulate or prescribe conduct which is not expressly prohibited by this article" language gives municipalities room to add stricter local standards. The flip side of that grant ("but may not authorize conduct otherwise prohibited") ensures that local codes cannot soften Article 18.

The criminal floor under Penal Law § 200.35 is separate: bribe-receiving by a public servant. A gift that complies with § 805-a's letter (under $75, no intent to influence) might still cross the line into a Penal Law § 200.35 violation depending on the facts. A stricter local ethics code helps ensure that officers and employees stay well clear of both lines.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• N.Y. General Municipal Law § 800 (definitions, including school districts)
• N.Y. General Municipal Law § 805-a ($75 gift restriction)
• N.Y. General Municipal Law § 806 (codes of ethics requirement)
• N.Y. Penal Law § 200.35 (bribe receiving by a public servant)

Source

• Landing page: https://ag.ny.gov/libraries-documents/opinions/opinions-year
• Original PDF: https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/I_99-16_pw.pdf

Original opinion text

GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, ART 18, §§ 800, 805-a; PENAL LAW § 200.35.
A school district may include within its code of ethics a
prohibition on gifts to officers and employees of the district
that is more stringent than provisions of State law.
May 5, 1999
Bernard B. Freedman, Esq.
Royalton Hartland Central
School District
2858 Delaware Avenue
Kenmore, NY 14217

Informal Opinion
No. 99-16

Dear Mr. Freedman:
You have inquired, on behalf of a Central School District,
whether the district may reduce the dollar limit on gifts to
officers or employees of the district provided by section 805-a
of article 18 of the General Municipal Law. Further, you have
asked whether the district may prohibit all gifts. Section
805-a(1)(a) provides that:
No municipal officer or employee shall: a.
directly or indirectly, solicit any gift, or
accept or receive any gift having a value of
seventy-five dollars or more, whether in the
form of money, service, loan, travel,
entertainment, hospitality, thing or promise,
or in any other form, under circumstances in
which it could reasonably be inferred that
the gift was intended to influence him, or
could reasonably be expected to influence
him, in the performance of his official
duties or was intended as a reward for any
official action on his part.
School districts are included within the definition of
municipality and, therefore, are covered by section 805-a.
General Municipal Law § 800(4).
In our view, the school district may include within its code
of ethics a more stringent gift provision, including, for
example, a prohibition on receipt of any gift by officers or
employees of the district while exercising, or in relation to,
their official duties or from persons with an official
relationship with the district. Under section 806 of the General
Municipal Law, the governing body of a school district is

2
required to adopt a code of ethics setting forth for the guidance
of its officers and employees the standards of conduct reasonably
expected of them. Section 806 generally describes areas to be
covered within a code of ethics. In addition, section 806
provides that codes of ethics "may regulate or prescribe [sic]
conduct which is not expressly prohibited by this article but may
not authorize conduct otherwise prohibited." In our view, a
stricter gift provision falls within this authorization. We note
that section 805-a(1)(a) includes standards that are difficult to
apply. Also, behavior permissible under that section, depending
on the specific facts, may constitute crimes under the Penal Law,
such as bribery. Penal Law § 200.35. A stricter gift provision
is consistent with the purpose of section 805-a(1)(a) and the
overall purpose of article 18 of the General Municipal Law to
ensure integrity of officials and public confidence in
government.
We conclude that a school district may include within its
code of ethics a prohibition on gifts to officers and employees
of the district that is more stringent than provisions of State
law.
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