Matter of Buerk v. Erie County Legislature, 43 N.Y.2d 230 (1977)
An office created by a County Charter or Administrative Code can only be abolished through legislative action of equal dignity, such as a local law, and not merely by omitting salary appropriations from the county budget.
Summary
This case concerns the power of the Erie County Legislature to abolish positions established by the County Charter and Administrative Code by simply removing their salary appropriations from the budget. The Court of Appeals held that such positions can only be abolished through a legislative act of equal dignity, such as a local law, which is subject to the County Executive’s veto power. The Court reasoned that omitting salary items from the budget, which is not subject to the same veto power, is not equivalent to amending the Charter or Code and is therefore ineffective to abolish the positions. This maintains the check and balance between the legislative and executive branches.
Facts
The Erie County Executive submitted a tentative budget for 1977 to the County Legislature, which included salary items for the positions of Deputy County Executive, Deputy Commissioner of Public Works-Buildings and Grounds, Deputy Director of Purchasing, Deputy Commissioner-Recreation, and County Forester. Subsequently, the County Legislature adopted an amended budget, excising the salary items for these five positions. The County Executive contended that these deletions were invalid, as the positions were created by the County Charter or Administrative Code.
Procedural History
The petitioners, members of the Erie County Legislature and citizen-taxpayers, initiated litigation by submitting a controversy on an agreed statement of facts to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division directed that the 1977 budget should not include the positions. The County Executive appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the Erie County Legislature can abolish positions in county government, established by the County Charter and Administrative Code, by striking salary appropriations for those positions from the budget submitted by the County Executive.
Holding
No, because the abolition of such positions requires a legislative act of equal dignity to the act that created them, such as a local law, and simply removing salary appropriations from the budget does not meet this requirement.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the positions in question were expressly created by provisions of the County Charter or Administrative Code. Amendments to the Charter and Code require a local law, which is subject to an initial veto by the County Executive. The adoption of the county budget, however, is effected by a majority vote of the County Legislature, and the County Executive’s veto power is limited to increases over the tentative budget, not legislative decreases. The Court emphasized the importance of the check and balance assured by the executive veto, stating that omitting salary items from the budget “was not, in terms of the required procedures, the legislative equivalent of the adoption of a local law amending the County Charter and Administrative Code to eliminate the positions.” The Court cited Matter of Moran v La Guardia, stating, “To repeal or modify a statute requires a legislative act of equal dignity and import. Nothing less than another statute will suffice.” The Court also noted that the doctrine of legislative equivalency has been applied with respect to the abolition of offices in local government. The Court rejected the argument that Section 204 of the County Law authorized the abolition of these positions by budget adoption because even if it did, the County Law would conflict with the Charter and Code, and the Charter and Code would prevail. The Court concluded that the petitioners were not entitled to the judgment directing that the positions not be included in the budget.