New York Law Review

Tag: New York Constitution Article V Section 1

  • New York Charter Schools Assn. v. DiNapoli, 13 N.Y.3d 120 (2009): Limits on Legislative Power to Assign Audits to Comptroller

    13 N.Y.3d 120 (2009)

    The New York State Constitution prohibits the Legislature from assigning the State Comptroller the power to audit entities that are not political subdivisions of the state, nor can the Legislature assign tasks that are not incidental to the Comptroller’s constitutionally prescribed functions.

    Summary

    This case addresses the scope of the New York State Comptroller’s auditing authority, specifically whether the state legislature can compel the Comptroller to audit charter schools. The Court of Appeals held that the legislature exceeded its constitutional authority by directing the Comptroller to audit charter schools because charter schools are not political subdivisions of the state, and auditing them is not incidental to the Comptroller’s other duties. This decision reinforces the separation of powers and protects the Comptroller’s independence.

    Facts

    In 2005, the New York State Legislature passed a bill directing the State Comptroller to audit all school districts, Boards of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES), and charter schools by March 31, 2010. This was motivated by financial scandals in some school districts. The State Comptroller notified several New York City charter schools that the Office of the State Comptroller had scheduled performance audits to assess academic achievement and compliance with student selection procedures. The charter schools questioned the Comptroller’s authority to conduct these audits.

    Procedural History

    Several charter schools and related organizations sued the State Comptroller, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Comptroller lacked the authority to audit charter schools and an injunction prohibiting such audits. Supreme Court initially ruled in favor of the charter schools. The Appellate Division reversed, finding the Comptroller’s audits permissible. The charter schools appealed to the Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the Legislature violated Article V, Section 1 of the New York State Constitution by assigning and directing the State Comptroller to audit charter schools.

    Holding

    No, because the Legislature exceeded its constitutional authority by delegating and directing the Comptroller to conduct audits of charter schools.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that Article V, Section 1 of the New York Constitution defines the Comptroller’s duties, which include auditing vouchers, official accounts, and the collection of revenues. The Legislature can assign the Comptroller supervision of the accounts of any political subdivision of the state and administrative duties incidental to those functions. However, the Constitution prohibits assigning the Comptroller unrelated administrative duties. The court found that charter schools are not political subdivisions of the state. Auditing charter schools is not considered an administrative duty incidental to auditing school districts, even though charter schools receive public funds through school districts. The court emphasized that the Board of Regents and charter entities are designated to supervise and oversee charter schools. The court distinguished this case from McCall v. Barrios-Paoli, where the Comptroller’s authority to audit city agencies (political subdivisions) was upheld. Here, the court stated, “the objective behind article V, § 1 was to protect the `independent character of the Comptroller’s audit function,’ a goal that was accomplished by prohibiting the Legislature from assigning to the Comptroller unrelated duties”. The Court stated that once funds have been transferred by a school district to a charter school, the money is no longer under the State’s control. The Court noted the ultimate check against a school is that the school may lose its charter if it is not meeting educational standards, as charters are renewed every five years. Therefore, the legislation directing the Comptroller to audit charter schools was unconstitutional.

  • County of Rensselaer v. Regan, 80 N.Y.2d 986 (1992): Limits on Comptroller’s Administrative Duties

    County of Rensselaer v. Regan, 80 N.Y.2d 986 (1992)

    The New York State Constitution prohibits the legislature from assigning administrative duties to the State Comptroller that are not incidental to the Comptroller’s constitutional functions.

    Summary

    Five counties and other plaintiffs challenged a provision in the 1990-1991 State Operations Budget that allowed the State Comptroller to withhold up to 2% of revenues collected by counties participating in the STOP-DWI program. These revenues were intended for local law enforcement and education efforts. The plaintiffs argued this provision violated Article V, § 1 of the New York Constitution, which limits the administrative duties the Legislature can assign to the Comptroller. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts’ rulings, holding that the budget provision was unconstitutional because it assigned administrative duties to the Comptroller that were not incidental to the Comptroller’s constitutional functions. The Court found the counties had standing to bring the suit because the STOP-DWI legislation gave them a proprietary claim to the funds.

    Facts

    In 1981, New York established the STOP-DWI program, allowing counties to receive fines and forfeitures from alcohol-related driving offenses for local law enforcement and education. The 1990-1991 State Budget included a provision allowing the State Comptroller to “collect, withhold and receive” up to 2% of these revenues to cover the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles’ administrative costs for the STOP-DWI program.

    Procedural History

    The plaintiffs, including five counties, filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that the budget provision violated the New York Constitution. The Supreme Court initially assumed, without deciding, that the plaintiffs had standing. The Appellate Division expressly held that the county plaintiffs had standing. Both the Supreme Court and the Appellate Division found the budget provision unconstitutional. The defendants appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the counties had standing to challenge the constitutionality of the legislative assignment of administrative duties to the Comptroller.

    Whether the budget provision allowing the Comptroller to withhold a portion of the STOP-DWI revenues violated Article V, § 1 of the New York Constitution by assigning administrative duties to the Comptroller not incidental to the Comptroller’s constitutional functions.

    Holding

    Yes, the counties had standing because the STOP-DWI legislation granted them a proprietary claim to the fines and forfeitures, allowing them to challenge the legislature’s actions regarding those funds.

    Yes, the budget provision violated Article V, § 1 of the New York Constitution because the legislature assigned to the Comptroller duties assertedly not incidental to his constitutional duties and granted overbroad discretion to effect the reduction.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals determined that the counties had standing because the existing STOP-DWI legislation gave them a proprietary claim to the funds in question. Thus, they could challenge the legislature’s actions. The court found it unnecessary to consider the standing of the STOP-DWI coordinator or the association of coordinators. Turning to the merits, the Court acknowledged the legislature’s broad authority over the disposition of fines collected in the state. However, the plaintiffs challenged the methodology of reducing their share of revenues, specifically the assignment of administrative duties to the Comptroller that were not incidental to constitutional functions. The Court agreed with the lower courts’ reasoning, finding the budget provision unconstitutional as it violated Article V, § 1 of the State Constitution. The court emphasized that the legislature’s authority is not unlimited; it must conform its actions to the state constitution. The court quoted Hunter v. Pittsburgh, stating the State Legislature, so long as it “conform(s) its action to the state constitution, may do as it will” with regard to political subdivisions.