Matter of Felix v. Board of Trustees, 81 N.Y.2d 878 (1993)
General Municipal Law § 207-m requires a police chief’s salary to increase only when the base salary of the highest-ranking subordinate position increases, not for individual pay increases earned by a subordinate rising through the ranks.
Summary
This case concerns the interpretation of General Municipal Law § 207-m, which mandates salary increases for police chiefs when the base salary of their highest-ranking subordinate increases. The petitioner, the Chief of Police of the Village of Dolgeville, argued that he was entitled to additional pay increases equal to the sum of pay increases received by his subordinate as he rose through the ranks. The court held that § 207-m is intended to prevent salary compression between police chiefs and their subordinates due to increases in the base salary of the subordinate position, not due to individual advancements and associated pay increases. Therefore, the petitioner’s claim was denied.
Facts
The petitioner was the Chief of Police of the Village of Dolgeville. The highest-ranking subordinate position in his department was Patrolman Grade I. The Patrolman Grade I position was vacant when salary increases were instituted for that position. Officer Scott Stefanec later filled the position, having risen through the ranks from Patrolman Recruit to Patrolman Grade I. The Chief of Police received pay increases each time the base salary of the Patrolman Grade I position increased, even when vacant.
Procedural History
The petitioner sought additional pay increases based on the sum of increases received by Officer Stefanec as he progressed through the ranks. The lower court dismissed the petition. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal. The case then went to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether General Municipal Law § 207-m mandates that a police chief receive an additional pay increase equal to the sum of the increases received by a subordinate as that subordinate rose through the ranks to become the highest-ranking subordinate.
Holding
No, because General Municipal Law § 207-m is intended to prevent salary compression resulting from increases in the base salary of the highest-ranking subordinate position, not from individual pay increases earned as a subordinate progresses through the ranks.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that the purpose of General Municipal Law § 207-m is to prevent salary compression between police chiefs and their subordinates. The statute was designed to ensure that when the *position* of the highest-ranking subordinate receives a raise, the police chief also receives a raise to maintain a proper salary differential. The court emphasized that the salary compression problem does not arise from an individual’s rise through the ranks and consequent pay increases, but rather from an increase in the *base salary* for the highest-ranking subordinate *position*. The court stated that “section 207-m is best interpreted to require that the head of the department receive a salary increase whenever the base salary of the highest ranking subordinate *position* is increased, whether or not the position itself is filled.” The court concluded that the petitioner had already received all that he was entitled to under the statute. The court referenced legislative history (Bill Jacket, L 1977, ch 827, Mem Supporting A 7913) and opinions of the State Comptroller (1986 Opns St Comp No. 86-23; 1984 Opns St Comp No. 84-20) to support its interpretation of the statute’s intent.