DIVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. ‘THOMAS P. DINAPOLL 110 Sta Stet 4 Floor STATE COMPTROLLER ‘Albany, NY 12236 “ ‘Tel: (518) 474-3446 STATE OF NEW YORK Fox (318) 475.9104 OFFICE OF THE STATE COMPTROLLER March 27, 2017 Anthony J. Izzo City Attomey’s Office City Hall Broadway Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 Dear Mr. Izzo: In response to your request and pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law, we are enclosing the following opinion: Opn No. 78-682 This opinion represents the views of the Office of the State Comptroller at the time it was rendered. The opinion may no longer represent those views if, among other things, there have been subsequent court cases or statutory amendments that bear on the issues discussed in the opinion, Very truly yours, MSM:lah Ene.— SMGRYICIPAL HOME RULE LAW, §36(5)(b): A cit: 1 z -y charter commission not expend funds Zor the purpose of urging adoption of the proposed charter; expenditures for publicity should be solely for the purpose of Purpose of educating the public as to the content of the proposed Septembex 6, 1978 78-662 Richard C. Kloch, Sr., City Attorney . North Tonawanda, New York Re: City of North Tonawanda Dear Mr, Kloch: ‘This is in response to your recent letter concerning the expenditure of funds by the city charter coumission for the se of urging voters .to adopt the proposed new charter. Bpocifically, you ask whether charter commission funds may be expended to post signs along one of the main streets of the city urging adoption of the charter and analogizing it to California's Proposition 13. You also ask whether such funds may be expended to purchase "Slingers" which would be given to city employees with their paychecks predicting pay increases and increased benefits if the proposed charter is adopted and implemented. Municipal Home Rule Law, §36 contains the provisions of law governing the adoption of, a new or revised city charter proposed By a charter commission. | Section 36(5) (b) provides for publicizing the proposed charter, but no provision specifically deals with the manner in which the charter should be publicized. Im correspondence dated June 24, 1975, addressed to the State Charter Revision Commission for New York City, this Department indicated its views with respect to the expenditure of State funds for the purpose of promoting the adoption of a new charter. We stated that the expenditure of funds for the promotion of a ular viewpoint would be improper and that such expenditures Bnoula be solely for the purpose of educating the public as to the should Pe Cie beoposed charter. A copy of the said letter, cited with approval in Stern v. Rramarsky, 1975, 84 Misc. 24 447, 375 N. ¥,8.28 235, is a ‘ewith for your reference. We think the views expressed in the enclosed opinion apply equally to the expenditure of municipal funds by a city charter comission and, therefore, it is our opinion that your inquiries mst be answered in the negative. .-2- 78-682 We trust that the above will be of assistance to you. Very truly yours, ARTHUR LEVITT State Comptroller By James C. Cooper Associate Counsel Bandel/gj Enc. ‘This opinion represents the views of the Office of the State Comptroller at the time it was rendered. The opinion may no longer represent those views if, among other things, there have been subsequent court cases or statutory amendments that bear on the issues discussed in the opinion.