Morin v. Foster
| Decision Date | 11 July 1978 |
| Citation | 380 N.E.2d 217,45 N.Y.2d 287,408 N.Y.S.2d 387 |
| Parties | , 380 N.E.2d 217 Lucien A. MORIN, as County Manager and as Director of Finance of the County of Monroe, et al., Respondents, v. Edwin A. FOSTER et al., Individually and as Monroe County Legislators, et al., Appellants. Allen J. POLVINO, Individually and on behalf of all other people similarly situated, Respondent, v. Edwin A. FOSTER et al., Individually and as Monroe County Legislators, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The issue in this case is whether Local Law No. 1 of 1978 as passed by the Monroe County Legislature curtails any power of elective county officials thereby violating the provisions of the State Constitution and the Municipal Home Rule Law in that it fails to make provision for a permissive referendum.
Monroe County operates under a county manager form of government. The county charter, as enacted by the people, provides that the manager will be appointed for a four-year term and can be removed only for cause. In passing Local Law No. 1, however the county legislature sought to amend the charter by striking the provision for a four-year term of office and by establishing instead, that the manager will serve at the pleasure of the county legislature. The law also deleted the charter provision which declared that the county manager could be removed from office only for cause, and further authorized removal by a majority vote of the county legislature "for any reason deemed by the County Legislature to be sufficient." This law, as recently adopted by the county legislature, provided that it would take effect upon filing in the office of the New York Secretary of State without provision for a permissive referendum.
Plaintiffs Morin, as County Manager and Director of Finance of the County of Monroe, and Polvino, a taxpayer, brought these actions against the county legislature and the clerk of that body for a declaration that Local Law No. 1 is invalid and unconstitutional and seeking also an injunction to prevent the filing or enforcement of the law. A preliminary injunction was issued.
The State Constitution (art. IX, § 1, subd. (h), par. (2)), the Municipal Home Rule Law ( § 34, subd. 4) and the Monroe County charter ( § 1405; Local Laws, 1965, No. 2 of County of Monroe) declare that an amendment of the county charter which abolishes or curtails "any power of an elective county officer" must provide for a permissive referendum. The plaintiffs urge that Local Law No. 1 curtails the power of the county legislators by extinguishing their right to appoint a county manager to a four-year term of office and thereby bind subsequent legislatures. In support thereof, the plaintiffs say that ordinarily in matters involving governmental functions, a county legislature may not enter into a binding commitment which extends beyond the elected term of office of the legislature, in this case two years, because such a commitment would infringe upon the prerogatives of subsequent legislators to make a judgment in the same matter. Where, however, the charter specifically grants the authority, one legislature may be empowered to bind its successors. The plaintiffs argue that the charter, by providing a four-year term of office for the county manager, gave the county legislature and each individual legislator the unique power to bind a subsequent legislature, and Local Law No. 1 attempts to abolish or curtail that power without providing for a permissive referendum as constitutionally and statutorily required. Special Term sustained the plaintiffs' contentions and declared Local Law No. 1 invalid. The court reasoned that although the law enhanced the power of the legislature in one respect by providing that the manager would serve at its pleasure, the converse of this broadened authority was to curtail that body's and each legislator's power to bind subsequent legislatures. The court concluded that by so curtailing a power of the county legislature without providing an opportunity for permissive referendum the law contravened section 34 of the Municipal Home Rule Law * and was, therefore, invalid. The Appellate Division, by a divided court, affirmed.
The county legislators appeal urging that the law enhances rather than curtails their power by permitting removal at their pleasure and that since the legislature has the power to fix the term of office of any county employee, the exercise of that power cannot be deemed a curtailment of any related power. Finally, appellants contend that in any event, one legislature cannot bind subsequent legislatures by contracting beyond its term and thus the four-year term is void Ab initio. For the various reasons discussed below, we reject these arguments and affirm the orders of the Appellate Division.
Commencing in the year 1936 the people of the County of Monroe adopted at a general election a county manager form of government based on the provisions of article 2-A of the County Law. From 1936 to 1967 the county operated under this form of government within the terms of the Optional County Government Law. That form of government was to be affected, as were others, by the adoption of article IX of the New York State Constitution in 1963 which declared a bill of rights for local governments authorizing the establishment of alternate forms of county government. Under the implementing legislation that followed (Municipal Home Rule Law, art. 4; the County Charter Law) a county was empowered to adopt its own county charter as long as it was consistent with the flexible terms of that law. Among other provisions, the County Charter Law required approval by a majority of the voters of the county before a new charter form of government could become effective (Municipal Home Rule Law, § 33, subd. 7).
In 1964 the Monroe County Board of Supervisors approved two separate, proposed county charters, each continuing the position of county manager as the chief executive officer of the county. Interestingly, each provided that the manager would serve at the pleasure of the legislature, but both proposals were defeated at the general election. Thereafter, and in contrast, the board of supervisors by Local Law No. 2 of 1965 adopted a county charter with the county manager serving a four-year term subject to removal only for cause. Pursuant to statutory mandate (Municipal Home Rule Law, § 33, subd. 7), this charter was approved by the people, effective in 1967 and is presently controlling. Crucial to this charter and the form of government adopted by Monroe County was the distinction between the legislative branch and the executive branch. Although the county legislature appointed the manager, once appointed he stood distinct and separate from the legislature with a four-year term subject to removal only for cause. Thus, the manager held a secure position with a fair degree of independence. The relationship between the manager and the legislature, an intrinsic part of this form of government, was established by the original charter as approved by the people.
In 1978, however, the county legislature attempted to alter this relationship through the exercise of its power to amend the charter. Thus, the legislature enacted Local Law No. 1 of 1978 which abolished the manager's four-year term of office and created the right to remove him at the pleasure of the legislature regardless of cause. Even if it could be considered that such a move was within the legislature's power, this law would drastically alter Monroe County's government without consideration by the voters whose approval was necessary for its creation.
The power of the county legislature to amend the charter is not unlimited. Our State Constitution provides that any amendment which abolishes or curtails "any power of an elective county officer" shall be subject to a permissive referendum (N.Y.Const., art. IX, § 1, subd. (h), par. (2); see, also, Municipal Home Rule Law, § 34; Monroe County Charter, § 1405). A local law which curtails any power of an elected county legislature is inoperative unless subject to a permissive referendum (see Matter of McCabe v. Voorhis, 243 N.Y. 401, 153 N.E. 849). Thus the crucial question here is whether Local Law No. 1 curtails "any power" of an elective county officer.
Unless specifically provided by statute or charter provisions, one county legislature may not bind the hands of its successors in areas relating to governmental matters (see Murphy v. Erie County, 34 A.D.2d 295, 298, 310 N.Y.S.2d 959, 961, affd. 28 N.Y.2d 80, 320 N.Y.S.2d 29, 268 N.E.2d 771; Edsall v. Wheler, 29 A.D.2d 622, 623, 285 N.Y.S.2d 306, 307; 10 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, § 29.101; 40 N.Y.Jur., Municipal Corporations, § 809). Elected officials must exercise legislative and governmental powers, within their own sound discretion, as the needs require. Ordinarily they may not so exercise their powers as to limit the same discretionary right of their successors to exercise that power and must transmit that power to their successors unimpaired (Edsall v. Wheler, 29 A.D.2d 622, 623, 285 N.Y.S.2d 306, 307, Supra ). In the instant case the county legislators are elected for a two-year term and absent a statutory or charter provision (here present of course) they may not bind their successors in matters relating to governmental or legislative functions beyond that term. We need not define all the types of activity covered by the broad rubric "governmental activity" as applicable in the context of this rule, although there can be no doubt that business matters are not affected (10 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, § 29.101), for in this case it is obvious that the appointment of a county manager is precisely and unmistakably a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Albion Disposal, Inc., 97-CV-0024E(SC)
...legislative functions unless it was specifically authorized to do so by statute or charter provision. See Morin v. Foster, 45 N.Y.2d 287, 293, 408 N.Y.S.2d 387, 380 N.E.2d 217 (1978); Lake v. Binghamton Housing Authority, 130 A.D.2d 913, 516 N.Y.S.2d 324, 325-326 (3d Dep't 1987); Quigley v.......
-
Cunningham v. Anderson Cnty.
...powers of their office by any final action of their predecessors on their way out of office.”); Morin v. Foster, 45 N.Y.2d 287, 408 N.Y.S.2d 387, 380 N.E.2d 217, 220 (1978) (recognizing that, but for a provision in a county's charter allowing for appointment of the county manager for a four......
-
Mayor of City of New York v. Council of City of New York
...power to appoint all members of the Board, and thus a referendum is not required for Local Law 91 (cf., Morin v. Foster, 45 N.Y.2d 287, 294, 408 N.Y.S.2d 387, 380 N.E.2d 217 [1978] [it was held that the absence of a provision for a referendum made a local law constitutionally defective wher......
-
United States ex rel. Anti-Discrimination Ctr. of Metro N.Y., Inc. v. Westchester Cnty.
...governance and not with a duty to undertake a substantive action in accordance with a consent decree. See Morin v. Foster, 45 N.Y.2d 287, 293, 408 N.Y.S.2d 387, 380 N.E.2d 217 (1978) (county legislature could not amend charter to allow county manager to be removed at will); City of Utica Ur......