Can a New York town supervisor also serve as the town librarian?

Plain-English summary

The Town of Sandy Creek has a town library run by a Library Board that selects the Librarian and sets the Librarian's salary. The Town Board appoints the Library Board members. The Town Board also funds the library annually through its budget. The town attorney asked whether the Town Supervisor could also serve as Town Librarian.

The AG said no, the positions are incompatible. The reasoning follows the standard compatibility framework from People ex rel. Ryan v Green: incompatibility exists where one office is subordinate to the other or where there is an inherent inconsistency between the duties.

Here the subordination is structural even though indirect. The Supervisor sits on the Town Board. The Town Board appoints the Library Board, which is the Librarian's direct supervisor. So the Librarian's bosses are appointed by the Supervisor's board. The Librarian's salary is set by the Library Board, but the Library Board's budget (and therefore the funds available for the salary) is set by the Town Board on which the Supervisor sits.

The AG cited a 1987 opinion finding the Town Supervisor and Town Code Enforcement Officer positions incompatible because of subordination. Sandy Creek's Town Librarian is "one step removed" from direct Town Board supervision, but the AG still found the positions incompatible. The Library Board depends on the Town Board for its members and resources, which may prevent impartial supervision of the Librarian.

The AG rejected recusal as an adequate remedy. Even if the Supervisor recused on every library matter, his Town Board colleagues would still decide library budget and Library Board membership, both of which directly affect the Librarian's pay and supervision. The colleagues' impartiality cannot be assumed when the affected official is the Supervisor sitting next to them on the board.

For Sandy Creek, the AG found that the Town Board's role in appointing the Library Board and funding the library made the Supervisor and Librarian positions incompatible.

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

Why doesn't the Library Board's independence break the chain?

The AG said the Library Board depends on the Town Board for its members and resources and therefore may be unable to supervise the Librarian impartially if the Supervisor also holds that position.

What if the Library Board operated entirely on private grants and donations?

The opinion does not address a library funded entirely by private grants or donations. Its analysis rests on the facts that Sandy Creek's Town Board appoints the Library Board and contributes funding to the library.

Could the Supervisor be a volunteer librarian, not the paid Librarian?

The opinion addresses the Town Librarian position as described by Sandy Creek, including a salary set by the Library Board. It gives no conclusion about a separate volunteer role.

What about a temporary acting Librarian during a vacancy?

The opinion does not discuss temporary or acting appointments or draw a line based on their duration. Its conclusion concerns holding the Town Supervisor and Town Librarian positions together under the arrangement Sandy Creek described.

Is this rule unique to libraries?

The AG specifically addressed Sandy Creek's Town Librarian. It cited an earlier opinion that found the Town Supervisor and Town Code Enforcement Officer positions incompatible because one was subordinate to the other.

Background and statutory framework

The compatibility doctrine from People ex rel. Ryan v Green is the framework. The two prongs (subordination and inherent inconsistency) cover most cases. The 1999 opinion is a subordination case; the supervisor's office is structurally superior to the librarian's even through the indirection of the Library Board.

The Sandy Creek facts supplied to the AG were that the Town Board appointed the Library Board and budgeted a sum for the library each year, while the Library Board selected the Librarian and determined the salary.

The 1987 AG opinion (Op Atty Gen (Inf) 167) that the 1999 opinion built on involved a more direct subordination (code enforcement officer directly under town board). The 1999 opinion extends the doctrine to the indirect case.

Citations

• People ex rel. Ryan v Green, 58 NY 295 (1874) (compatibility leading case; subordination and inherent inconsistency).
• 1987 Op Atty Gen (Inf) 167 (Town Supervisor / Town Code Enforcement Officer incompatible due to direct subordination).

Source

• Landing page: https://ag.ny.gov/libraries-documents/opinions/opinions-year
• Original PDF: https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/I_99-39_pw.pdf

Original opinion text

Opn. No. 99-39
The supervisor of a town may not also serve as the town librarian. December 30, 1999 Timothy M. McClusky, Esq. Town Attorney Town of Sandy Creek P. O. Box 697 Sandy Creek, New York 13145

Informal Opinion
No. 99-39

Dear Mr. McClusky:
You have asked whether the Town Supervisor of the Town of Sandy Creek also may serve as the Town Librarian. You have informed us that the Town Board appoints the Library Board, which in turn selects the Librarian and determines the Librarian's salary. The Town Board also budgets a certain sum each year for the Library. We believe the two positions are incompatible. The leading case on compatibility of offices is People ex rel. Ryan v Green, 58 NY 295 (1874). In the absence of a constitutional or statutory prohibition against dual office holding, one person may hold two offices simultaneously unless they are incompatible. Id. The Court of Appeals held that two offices are incompatible if one is subordinate to the other or if there is an inherent inconsistency between the duties of the two offices. Even where positions are compatible, a conflict of interest may arise with respect to particular matters. In many instances, conflicts can be avoided by declining to participate in the disposition of the particular matter. In a prior opinion, we concluded that the office of Town Supervisor is incompatible with the position of Town Code Enforcement Officer because one position is subordinate to the other. 1987 Op Atty Gen (Inf) 167. We noted that the Supervisor is a member of the Town Board and that the Board oversees Town employees, sets their compensation and assesses their performance. In the situation you describe, the Town Librarian is one step removed from direct supervision by the Town Board. Nonetheless, in our view the positions are incompatible. As a member of the Town Board, the Supervisor votes on appointments to the Library Board, whose members would appoint and supervise him and determine his compensation as Town Librarian. The Supervisor also participates in determining the amount of funding the Town will contribute to the Library each year. Also, the Library Board, because of its dependence on the Town Board for resources and appointment of its members, may be unable to supervise the Librarian impartially. At the very least, service in both positions would create the appearance of a conflict of interest, which must be avoided to maintain public confidence in the integrity of government. Even if the Supervisor were to recuse himself from participating in matters affecting the Library, his colleagues on the Town Board would determine the budget of the Library and appoint its governing body. These actions would affect funds available for the Librarian's salary and other benefits and determine his supervisors. The impartiality of the Town Board in making these decisions affecting the Supervisor as Librarian would not be free from doubt. Therefore, recusal is not an adequate remedy. 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 Solicitor General In Charge of Opinions