Can the county officer who runs the county's workers' compensation self-insurance program also serve as supervisor of a town that participates in that program?

Plain-English summary

Sullivan County operated a self-insurance program for workers' compensation and other liability lines. Towns and villages in the county could participate. The Town of Liberty participated in the workers' compensation portion. The County's Director of Risk Management ran the program: receiving claims, investigating, deciding whether to pay, defending controverted claims at Workers Compensation Board hearings, and unilaterally authorizing settlement.

The County Attorney asked whether the Director could run for Town Supervisor of Liberty. The AG said no, the offices are incompatible.

The reasoning runs through the standard compatibility framework from People ex rel. Ryan v Green. The Director is not subordinate to the Supervisor or vice versa (different units of local government), so the "you cannot be your own boss" prong does not fit. But the "inherent inconsistency" prong does. The Director makes adjudicative decisions about workers' compensation claims brought by Town of Liberty employees. The Supervisor, by virtue of running the town, develops close working relationships with those same employees. A single person sitting in both seats cannot make impartial Director-side claim decisions about people he sees every day as Supervisor.

The AG emphasized that even if actual bias never showed up, the appearance of a conflict would be persistent and unavoidable. Public confidence in the integrity of government requires that this kind of structural conflict be prevented at the entry point: by not letting the dual role start, rather than by trying to police every claim afterward.

Recusal would not help. The Director's job is to adjudicate every Town of Liberty employee's claim. Recusal in every Liberty case would be functional disqualification from a core part of the Director's job, which is not the same as compatibility.

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 usual "recuse from particular matters" approach work?

Because the conflict is not occasional. Every Town of Liberty workers' compensation claim would require recusal. Where conflicts saturate the role rather than appearing in isolated cases, the AG treats the situation as inherent incompatibility, not case-by-case management.

What if Liberty stopped participating in the county program?

That would change the analysis. The incompatibility flagged by the AG depends on Liberty's participation in the program the Director runs. If Liberty exited, the structural conflict would disappear.

Could the County restructure so the Director didn't decide Liberty's claims?

Possibly, if another county employee or an outside hearing officer handled Liberty's claims with the Director not involved. The opinion does not explore this carve-out in detail; it focuses on the configuration as it stood.

Does this apply to other county-administered programs that towns participate in?

The same compatibility logic applies wherever a county officer makes individualized determinations about town employees or town residents. Self-insurance is the most common pattern but health benefits, retirement administration, civil service oversight, and similar programs can present the same issue.

What about appearance of impropriety alone?

The AG explicitly relied on appearance: "Service in both positions would, at best, create the appearance of a conflict of interests, which must be avoided to maintain public confidence in the integrity of government." Appearance-based reasoning supports incompatibility even where actual bias cannot be proven.

Background and statutory framework

The compatibility doctrine in New York runs through People ex rel. Ryan v Green and its progeny. The two prongs (subordination and inherent inconsistency) operate independently. A pair of offices can be incompatible under either.

County self-insurance programs operate under Workers Compensation Law Article 5 (which permits self-insurance subject to State approval) and parallel General Municipal Law provisions for liability coverage. Counties commonly invite their constituent towns and villages to participate as a cost-saving consolidation. The Director or Administrator of such a program holds significant adjudicative authority.

The case-by-case recusal alternative for office combinations works only where conflicts are occasional. The AG's repeated guidance is that where a substantial portion of one role would require recusal, the proper remedy is incompatibility, not recusal.

Citations

• Workers Compensation Law Article 5 (self-insurance authorization).
• People ex rel. Ryan v Green, 58 NY 295 (1874) (compatibility-of-office leading case; subordination and inherent inconsistency tests).

Source

• Landing page: https://ag.ny.gov/libraries-documents/opinions/opinions-year
• Original PDF: https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/I_99-30_pw.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain. The linked PDF is authoritative.

The position of county director of risk management/
insurance is incompatible with the position of town supervisor
where the town participates in the county insurance program.

October 13, 1999

Ira J. Cohen, Esq. Informal Opinion
County Attorney No. 99-30
Sullivan County Department of Law
P. O. Box 5012
Monticello, New York 12701

Dear Mr. Cohen:

You have asked whether the Sullivan County Director of Risk
Management/Self Insurance ("Director") may run for the elected
office of Town Supervisor of the Town of Liberty, which lies
within the County. You have advised us that Sullivan County has
a County Legislature and therefore that the supervisor of a town
within the County has only town-wide responsibilities.

In the absence of a constitutional or statutory prohibition
against dual office holding, one person may hold two offices
simultaneously unless they are incompatible. The leading case on
compatibility of offices is People ex rel. Ryan v Green, 58 NY
295 (1874). In that case 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 two offices. The
former can be characterized as "you cannot be your own boss," a
status readily identifiable. The latter is not easily
characterized, for one must analyze the duties of the two offices
to ascertain whether there is an inconsistency. An obvious
example is the inconsistency of holding both the office of
auditor and the office of director of finance.

There are two subsidiary aspects of compatibility. One is
that the compatibility requirement equally covers a public office
and a position of employment as well as two positions of public
employment. Also, where positions are compatible, a conflict of
interests may arise out of the simultaneous holding of the
positions with respect to particular matters. The conflict may
be avoided by declining to participate in the disposition of the
particular matter.

You have informed us that the Director administers the
County's self-insurance program, which includes liability, health
and workers' compensation coverage. The towns and villages
within the County may participate in the County's insurance
program. The Town of Liberty participates in the County's
workers' compensation program.

You have provided us with the County's written description
of the Director's duties. The job description lists "typical
work activities" as including the following:

Supervises and administers the complete
adjudication of Worker's Compensation claims
against participating entities of a Self-Insurance
Plan established pursuant to the
provisions of Article 5 of the Workers
Compensation Law;

Receives claims, conducts investigations,
makes a determination on claims, and performs
follow-up activities on open claims;

Coordinates the defense of controverted
Workers Compensation claims and issues, and
represents the Self-Insurance Plan at
hearings before the New York State Workers
Compensation Board;

You informed us that the Director unilaterally can authorize
settlement of workers' compensation claims. Thus, the Director
is responsible for determining whether to pay workers'
compensation claims brought by Town of Liberty employees.

In our view, the position of Director is incompatible with
the office of Town Supervisor. The Supervisor inevitably will
have strong relationships with officers and employees of the Town
with whom he works on a regular basis. A person serving in both
positions may be unable to make impartial decisions as Director
about claims by Town officers and employees solely in the public
interest. Service in both positions would, at best, create the
appearance of a conflict of interests, which must be avoided to
maintain public confidence in the integrity of government.

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 Solicitor General