State Board of Elections Must Raise the Ethical Bar for County Staff and Commissioners

May 8, 2026

May 7, 2026

VIA EMAIL

Brian L. Quail, Esq., 
New York State Board of Elections
40 North Pearl Street, Suite 5
Albany, New York 12207 

Re: State Board of Elections Should Adopt Code of Ethics for County Board Staff and Commissioners, Strengthen Conflicts of Interest Policy

Dear Mr. Quail,

We write to provide comments on the emergency adoption of Part 6224, Conflicts of Interest Among Board of Elections Employees, as published in the NYS Register on March 11, 2026, and ask the State Board of Elections (SBOE) to create a comprehensive code of ethics for all county boards of election staff and commissioners. 

The SBOE must ensure that a code of ethics and the conflicts of interest policy in Part 6224 apply to all staff and commissioners – including the NYC Board of Elections commissioners. It would be an oversight to not include NYC commissioners, regardless of their compensation. Given the roles and duties of commissioners, policies governing their conduct should be even more robust – particularly in light of NY Focus’s reporting about a commissioner’s involvement in a Super PAC.

Additionally, we ask the SBOE to make corrections or additions to Part 6224, which are summarized below, and available in greater detail at the end of this letter.

  1. The regulations should not conflict with General Municipal Law Article 18, including but not limited to Section 801, Conflicts of Interest, and Section 803, Disclosure of Interest. 
  1. The regulations should make it clear that county governments may have conflicts of interest policies and codes of ethics that go above and beyond SBOE rules that must also be followed by board employees and commissioners. 
  1. “Conflict of interest” should be defined as broader than a “pecuniary benefit,” to include any private benefit that conflicts with the proper discharge of public duties, as is required by General Municipal Law Article 18, NYS Public Officers Law Section 74, and Chapter 68 of the New York City Charter.
  1. The definition of “vendor” should clearly include all companies doing business with the county boards.
  1. The prohibition on conflicts of interest should also include perceived conflicts or the appearance to the public of a potential conflict.
  1. Approval of waivers should be publicly announced at board meetings and available on county boards’ websites.
  1. Violations of the regulations should be referred to county boards of ethics or the NYC Conflicts of Interest Board.

Boards of elections staff serving in party positions should not be permitted to seek endorsements of their colleagues in the workplace. The current language could be interpreted as condoning this behavior.

Need for a Code of Ethics for Employees and Commissioners
Under the new Section 3-304 of the Election Law, the State Board of Elections (SBOE) is charged with developing regulations to establish a waiver provision for a conflicts of interest policy. However, we note that in the NYS Register, you cited your general authority under 3-102(17) in developing regulations. Further, the SBOE declared that the goal of the regulation is to “ensure the bipartisan, standardized, transparent application of conflicts of interest rules at boards of elections.” 

Given the importance of this policy and the SBOE’s role in ensuring “the fair and trustworthy administration of elections,” we believe it is within your power to enact a broader code of ethics modeled on NYS Public Officers Law Section 74, and Chapter 68 of the New York City Charter.

To our knowledge, there is no model or statewide code of ethics specific to county boards of election staff and commissioners. Codes of conduct have been proposed by the Elections Group, which include an oath of office that includes a statement that the individual has no conflicts of interest. Under NYS Election Law, campaigns must follow a Fair Campaign Code, and at the NYC Board of Elections, Personnel Guidelines are published on their website. Unfortunately, they only apply to employees, not commissioners. 

This oversight must be corrected, particularly because of recent reporting by NY Focus exposing a recent example of a NYC Board of Elections commissioner’s conflict of interest. The commissioner voted on petition challenges in a Special Election for New York City Council District 3, in which he was serving as the Treasurer of a SuperPAC spending funds in support of one of the candidates. 

County Commissioners are Already Salaried Employees – but Not in NYC
Under Section §3-208 of the Election Law, commissioners in counties other than in New York City have salaries set by the county legislative body. In New York City, commissioners receive $300 a day for each day’s attendance at board and committee meetings, not to exceed $30,000 a year. According to data provided by local election commissioners to Reinvent Albany in 2024, in all counties except New York City, commissioners are also paid employees of their boards, working either part-time or full-time. 

Regardless of whether commissioners are salaried employees or receive per diems, we believe all county board employees and commissioners should be subject to a code of ethics and conflicts of interest rules. Indeed, it could be argued that given the roles and duties of commissioners, conflicts of interest rules governing their conduct should be even more robust.

Patchwork of Local Ethics Oversight Requires State-Level Action
Absent a strong code of ethics issued by the SBOE, oversight of conflicts of interest of county boards of elections is dependent on the strength of local ethics laws and enforcement and the willingness of county legislatures (or the New York City Council) to use their appointment and budget powers.

In New York City, the Board of Elections commissioners must file financial disclosure forms, and are required to abide by the provisions of Chapter 68 of the City Charter regarding the city’s code of ethics – but for provisions related to service as party officials, per a 1996 opinion from the Corporation Counsel citing overriding provisions of the State Constitution regarding mandated party representation in election administration. 

Unfortunately, New York State law does not mandate the creation of county boards of ethics. A 2017 Times Union investigation found a patchwork of local ethics enforcement, and specifically noted that while the Albany County Board of Ethics was created in 2011, it was not appointed until 2016. Similarly, an audit by the Onondaga County Comptroller from 2015 found that the county board was not functioning, kept no meeting minutes, and did not investigate potential conflicts of interest.

Specific Recommendations for Part 6224
Beyond the need to broaden the conflicts of interest provisions to commissioners and adopt a broader code of ethics, we have specific comments on the draft regulations:

  1. The regulations must not conflict with General Municipal Law Article 18, including but not limited to the following sections:

    • Section 801, which establishes conflict of interest rules for municipal officers and employees;
    • Section 803, which requires disclosure of interest in contracts with municipalities, including in the official record of proceedings of the body. This in particular would apply to boards’ commissioners.

  2. The regulations should make it clear that county governments may have conflicts of interest and code of ethics policies that go above and beyond state requirements. This is most certainly the case in New York City, where Chapter 68 of the New York City charter provides a number of prohibitions on conduct and requires the filing of financial disclosure statements for commissioners and policymakers.

  3. In the definitions section, Part 6224(1), “conflict of interest” should be defined as broader than a “pecuniary benefit,” to also include a private benefit that conflicts with the proper discharge of public duties.

    • NYS’s Public Officers Law Section 74(2) is broader, and reads as follows: “No officer or employee of a state agency, member of the legislature or legislative employee should have any interest, financial or otherwise, direct or indirect, or engage in any business or transaction or professional activity or incur any obligation of any nature, which is in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of his or her duties in the public interest.”
    • Chapter 68 of the NYC Charter defines conflicts as those providing a private benefit that is in conflict with official duties. Under Section 2604(a)(2), “No public servant shall engage in any business, transaction or private employment, or have any financial or other private interest, direct or indirect, which is in conflict with the proper discharge of his or her official duties.”

  4. The definition of “vendor” should also be broadened to include all companies doing business with the county boards. Right now, the regulations only specifically include companies selling “voting systems and/or election-related services for such systems,” and “printing companies, election consulting companies, direct mail companies and digital marketing companies.” The definition should clearly indicate that it would be a conflict to have a financial interest in any company doing business with the board of elections.

    • Similarly, Section 6224.2 should be broadened to any vendors or companies doing business either with the board of elections, or candidates in an election overseen by the board of elections.

  5. In 6224.2(a), the prohibition on conflicts of interest should also include perceived conflicts or the appearance to the public of a potential conflict. This is standard in codes of ethics and enforcement. While this is included in Section 6224.3(a)(2)(v) of the regulations, this is only in reference to seeking authorization to continue work at the board despite running for office. This should be included for all conflicts under the policy. For example:

    • NYS POL Section 74(h): “An officer or employee of a state agency, member of the legislature or legislative employee should endeavor to pursue a course of conduct which will not raise suspicion among the public that he or she is likely to be engaged in acts that are in violation of his or her trust.”
    • The NYC Conflicts of Interest Board is charged with determining whether there is an appearance of conflict when evaluating outside business dealings of public officials under §2604(a)(4) of Chapter 68 of the New York City Charter.

  6. Approval of waivers should be publicly announced at board meetings and available on county boards’ websites under Section 6224.2(d). Under the regulations, boards must vote on any waivers to the conflicts of interest policy. However, there is no requirement that any approval of waivers be announced at public meetings, be recorded in meeting minutes, and that these minutes be published on the board of elections’ website. These provisions should be added.

  7. Section 6224.2(d) appears to have a typo; this subdivision references Section 6222.3, but we assume this should be Section 6224.3.

  8. Violations as referenced in Section 6224.4 should include referral to county boards of ethics or the NYC Conflicts of Interest Board, not just local law enforcement.

  9. Section 6224.5. appears to have a typo, and goes beyond the scope of the law. “Seek” should be removed. It reads in (a): “It shall not be considered a conflict of interest for a board of elections employee to seek, endorse, or support a candidate for a party position, or to serve in such a party position.” The inclusion of “seek” goes beyond Section 3-304 of the Election Law, which states that it is not considered a conflict of interest for employees who are also in party positions to make endorsements or support candidates. “Seek” should be removed because boards of election employees should not be seeking endorsements from their colleagues in the workplace, and it could be interpreted as condoning this behavior.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Rachael Fauss
Senior Policy Advisor
Reinvent Albany