Get to Know NYCOM
The New York State Conference of Mayors and Municipal Officials (NYCOM) is an association of, and for, cities and villages in New York. Since 1910, NYCOM has united local government officials in an active statewide network focused on the singular purpose of finding the most effective means of providing essential municipal services. Through the active participation of our membership, which represents more than 12 million New Yorkers, NYCOM is an aggressive advocate for city and village interests before the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of state government, as we seek to ensure local home rule for the government closest to the people. Our association is a readily accessible source of practical information touching upon every area of municipal activity, and is also a leader in the on-going training and education of local officials. We also facilitate shared services and predictable costs through our partnership programs. Our Executive Committee and staff take pride in having NYCOM serve as an extension of your city or village hall staff.
If you're a new city or village official, NYCOM has a variety of resources to help you get off to the right start with information on every aspect of government operations, including municipal finance, economic development, ethics, open meetings, and much more.
NYCOM's
Handbook for City OfficialsandHandbook for Village Officialsare comprehensive guidebooks for local officials that include information on a variety of topics all in one place. Each chapter covers a specific subject related to city and village operations to ensure you have a basic understanding of those municipal issues of greatest importance to what you do. NYCOM also produces a variety of publications which provide a more in-depth understanding of specific issues, processes and procedures.
Each year, we collect updated information from each municipality’s primary contact during their election month (although changes can be made anytime via NYCOM’s membership database) in order to develop what NYCOM refers to as a Municipal Profile.
Your Municipal Profile acts as our master record to facilitate effective communication and ensure that you receive NYCOM mailings, announcements, and updates. Please review your Municipal Profile, which is accessible by both primary/alternate contacts* in the database (located under “Organization” then “Employees”), and update any details to reflect recent election results or other changes.
If you require assistance, please contact Nicole Ognan at
*This primary/alternate designation will be evident when you log into the system and all capabilities associated with such designation will be immediately available. To change the Primary or Alternate contact, email
One of the most valuable services NYCOM offers is our legal and financial inquiry service. Each year NYCOM staff handle thousands of phone calls and emails from NYCOM members, answering legal and technical queries. The role of NYCOM’s attorneys is to answer general municipal law questions for city/village officials and serve as a professional resource for your municipal attorney. Every local official should consult with their own city/village attorney on specific legal issues because their attorneys are most familiar with your municipality's local legislation and circumstances, and they directly represent the city/village in legal matters.
One of NYCOMs primary responsibilities is to advocate for
at the state and federal level. You can use the NYCOM website to find out who your legislators are as well as to learn about NYCOM's policy platform. You are encouraged to visit our online to stay on top of legislation that the NYCOM staff is tracking during a particular legislative session.
NYCOM offers a multitude of training opportunities with as well as a variety of regional workshops and webinars throughout the year, with professional certification and education credits available at most of these events.
10/2/25, 1:38 PM
Village of Red Hook New York Mail - NYCOM Bill Kelly Scholorship
Frances Uku francesuku@redhookvillage.gov
NYCOM Bill Kelly Scholorship
Jennifer Purcell jennifer@nycom.org To: francesuku@redhookvillage.gov Cc: Norma Jean Sheehy norma@nycom.org
Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 3:02 PM
Good afternoon Frances
I am reaching out to you today regarding your submission to the Bill Kelly Scholarship. You have been awarded the $1,000 scholarship. A letter has already been sent to you regarding the scholarship, but I wanted to touch base today.
SInce you already paid the 2025 Fall Training School NYCOM registration for $570 we will reimburse the village for the registration. In addition if you have Fall Training School hotel expenses, you may receive an additional $430 reimbursement. In order to receive this additional reimbursement, we will need a final hotel paid receipt emailed to us (Please email to Norma Sheehy at norma@nycom.org). If you have any further questions, please feel free to reach out.
All the best and congratulations,
Jennifer
--
Jennifer Purcell
NYCOM Director of Events and Publications
119 Washington Ave., Albany, NY 12210 • (518) 463-1185
UPCOMING EVENTS
NYCOM Public Works School: Oct. 6-8, 2025 (Lake George)
1/1
Wade Beltramo wade@nycom.org To: Frances Uku francesuku@redhookvillage.gov
Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 9:43 AM
Trustee Uku,
While the Mayor may make her/his own proclamation, authorizing the placement of “merch” to be distributed to constituents within the Village facilities should be authorized by the Board of Trustees, as the Board has management authority over municipal property. Moreover, there should be a clear policy established by the Board and a clear indication that this is government speech and not a forum which any individual/entity can place their material/merch in.
See the attached article which fleshes out the importance of keeping this government speech as opposed to creating a public forum.
I hope that this is helpful. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter further, do not hesitate to drop me an email or give me a call.
Wade Beltramo General Counsel New York Conference of Mayors 119 Washington Ave., 2nd Floor Albany, N.Y. 12210 518-463-1185 518-463-1190 (Fax) wade@nycom.org
Disclaimer: The enclosed information is intended for general informational purposes only. To the extent that the information contained herein is an interpretation of law, such interpretation is an opinion of the NYCOM staff and does not constitute specific legal advice. Moreover, NYCOM and its staff do not maintain an attorney-client relationship with its members or their officers or employees. This correspondence does not establish and should not be construed as establishing an attorney-client relationship with either the recipient or the municipality for which they work. We recommend that you consult with your municipal attorney to obtain specific legal advice about a proposed course of action and/or the consequences thereof.
[Quoted text hidden]
shurtleffvbostonvol5no2.pdf 136K
Clarifying Government Speech v. Creating a Public Forum
By Wade Beltramo, NYCOM General Counsel | Ph: (518) 463-1185 | email: wade@nycom.org | www.nycom.org
When the government encourages diverse expression — say, by creating a forum for debate — the First Amendment prevents it from discriminating against speakers based on their viewpoint. . . . But when the government speaks for itself, the First Amendment does not demand airtime for all views. After all, the government must be able to “promote a program” or “espouse a policy” in order to function. . . . The line between a forum for private expression and the government’s own speech is important, but not always clear.
- Justice Breyer,
First Amendment jurisprudence can be difficult to understand for even the most seasoned First Amendment lawyers, let alone for local officials. Nevertheless, city and village officials are well-served by educating themselves on the basics of First Amendment principles. Municipal officials can quickly find themselves entangled in First Amendment snares that are a natural part of local officials’ day-to-day activities. Shurtleff v. City of Boston , 142 S.Ct. 1583, a recent U.S. Supreme Court case, provides a valuable lesson in just how easily local officials can trip themselves up and violate First Amendment rights. The Court’s decision highlights how local officials can avoid making the same mistakes.
Background of the Shurtleff Case
For years, the City of Boston allowed private groups to request use of the City’s flagpole, located outside of Boston’s City Hall, to raise a flag of their choosing. During that time, the City had approved hundreds of requests to raise dozens of different flags, not denying a single request to raise a flag until 2017, when Harold Shurtleff, the director of a group called Camp Constitution, asked to fly a Christian flag. The City refused to allow the flying of the flag. At that time, the City did not have a written policy limiting the flagpole’s use based on the content of a flag, and Mr. Shurtleff and the City disagreed as to whether Boston reserved the pole to fly flags that communicate governmental messages or instead
opened the flagpole for citizens to express their own views. Mr. Shurtleff challenged the City’s decision in federal court.
The Lower Court Rulings
The District Court held that flying private groups’ flags from City Hall’s third pole amounted to government speech, and that, as a result, the City acted within its constitutional authority in declining to raise Camp Constitution’s flag. The District Court granted summary judgment for Boston, and Mr. Shurtleff appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals,
Mr. Shurtleff and Camp Constitution next petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to decide whether the flags Boston allows groups to fly express government speech, and whether Boston could, consistent with the U.S. Constitution’s Free Speech Clause, deny petitioners’ flag-raising request.
Supreme Court Analysis
Introduction and Overview of the Issue
The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision, and Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority decision, which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined. At the outset of his decision, Justice Breyer noted that a key question was
28 .. municipal matters | Vol. 5, No. 2
whether the City had reserved the flagpole to fly flags that communicate governmental messages, in which case the City would be free to choose the flags it flies without the constraints of the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause, or whether the City had opened the flagpole to citizens to express their own views, in which case the Free Speech Clause prevents Boston from refusing a flag based on its viewpoint.
Because of the lack of a written policy regarding the flying of flags on the City’s flagpole, the Court had to analyze the City’s past practices to determine whether the City had turned the flagpole into a public forum imbued with First Amendment protections.
The Court began its analysis of the City’s practices by noting that, since at least 2005, Boston had allowed groups to hold flag-raising ceremonies on the plaza outside City Hall, with participants hoisting a flag of their choosing on the third flagpole (in place of the City’s flag) and flying it for the duration of the event, typically a couple of hours. Most of the ceremonies involved flags of other countries. However, several flag raisings involved other kinds of groups or causes, such as Pride Week, emergency medical service workers, and a community bank. Between 2005 and 2017, Boston approved approximately 50 unique flags, raised at 284 ceremonies, with no record of any group being refused a request to raise a flag.
In July 2017, Harold Shurtleff, the director of an organization called Camp Constitution, asked to hold a flag raising in September to “commemorate the civic and social contributions of the Christian community.” The event would feature remarks by local clergy and the raising of the “Christian flag.”
Boston’s Property Management Department Commissioner denied the request because “it was the Christian flag or [was] called the Christian flag,” worrying that flying a religious flag at City Hall could violate the Constitution’s Establishment Clause. The Commissioner informed Mr. Shurtleff that he could still hold the event if he raised a different flag.
Mr. Shurtleff and Camp Constitution sued the City and the Property Management Department Commissioner, claiming that Boston’s refusal to let them raise their flag violated the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause.
Government Speech Discussed
Justice Breyer began his analysis by noting that the first and basic question that must be addressed is whether Boston’s flag-raising program constitutes government speech? If so, the Court noted, Boston may refuse to fly flags based on viewpoint.
Justice Breyer summarized the law regarding government speech as follows:
The First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause does not prevent the government from declining to express a view. [Citation omitted] When the government wishes to state an opinion, to speak for the community, to formulate policies, or to implement programs, it naturally chooses what to say and what not to say. [Citation omitted] That must be true for government to work. Boston could not easily congratulate the Red Sox on a victory were the city powerless to decline to simultaneously transmit the views of disappointed Yankees fans. The Constitution therefore relies first and foremost on the ballot box, not on rules against viewpoint discrimination, to check the government when it speaks. [Citation omitted]
The Court cautioned, however, that
[T]he boundary between government speech and private expression can blur when, as here, a government invites the people to participate in a program. In those situations, when does governmentpublic engagement transmit the government’s own message? And when does it instead create a forum for the expression of private speakers’ views?
Breyer emphasized that a court’s inquiry into this question is “designed to determine whether the government intends to speak for itself or to regulate private expression.” Factors that courts will consider when undertaking this analysis include the history of the expression at issue; the public’s likely perception as to who is speaking (the government or a private person); and the extent to which the government has actively shaped or controlled the expression.[1]
Examples of government speech have included permanent monuments in a public park, even when the monuments were privately funded and donated[2 ] and license plate designs proposed by private groups because the State that issued the plates “maintain[ed] direct control over the messages conveyed” by “actively” reviewing designs and rejecting over a dozen proposals.[3 ]
One of the key factors at issue in the Shurtleff case was the fact that the City of Boston “told the public that it sought ‘to accommodate all applicants’ who wished to hold events at Boston’s ‘public forums,’ including on City Hall Plaza.” The City even had an application form for the events.
Justice Breyer gave an example of an actual municipal flag practice that would not create a public forum, specifically noting the City of San Jose’s written policy which (1) states that its “‘flagpoles are not intended to serve as a forum for free expression by the public,’” and (2) lists approved flags that may be flown “‘as an expression of the City’s official sentiments.’”
municipal matters | Vol. 5, No. 2
29
Clarifcation of Establishment Clause Issues
The City of Boston tripped itself up in part because of concerns that allowing a religious group to raise a flag would violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. This is a common concern of local officials. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized that local governments may not discriminate against groups on the basis of religion.
Justice Breyer reaffirmed this proposition, writing,
When a government does not speak for itself, it may not exclude speech based on “religious viewpoint”; doing so “constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination.” Good News Club v. Milford Central School , 533 U.S. 98, 112, 121 S.Ct. 2093, 150 L.Ed.2d 151 (2001). Applying that rule, we have held, for example, that a public university may not bar student-activity funds from reimbursing only religious groups. See Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 830–834, 115 S.Ct. 2510. Here, Boston concedes that it denied Shurtleff ’s request solely because the Christian flag he asked to raise “promot[ed] a specific religion.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 155a (quoting Rooney deposition). Under our precedents, and in view of our government-speech holding here, that refusal discriminated based on religious viewpoint and violated the Free Speech Clause.
The Court then held that Boston’s flag-raising program does not express government speech and, as a result, that the City’s refusal to let Shurtleff and Camp Constitution fly their flag based on its religious viewpoint violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
Not Just Flagpoles
An important takeaway from the Shurtleff decision is that it applies not only to flagpoles but to all locations and infrastructure that are not considered a traditional public forum or a traditional quasi-public forum. For example, if a local government manages a kiosk, bulletin board, social media page, or its own website, such infrastructure is not per se a public forum if the municipality only uses those resources to convey information to the public. In addition, municipal officials painting “Black Lives Matter” on their streets does not per se require them to allow any individual, group, or organization to put their own message on city or village streets. If, however, the local government were to open up those locations for the public to place information on, then they would be considered public forums, subject to First Amendment protections.
There are a couple of steps however, municipalities can take to protect themselves from violating the First Amendment:
-
Do NOT have an application process for flying flags or posting information on the municipal websites, in the municipal newsletter, or on municipal kiosks or bulletin boards;
-
Municipalities should establish a written policy and practice of responding to requests to fly flags or post information by stating that the city or village does not accept requests to fly flags or post information on city or village infrastructure;
-
Municipalities should have posted, written policies stating that the flagpole, kiosk, bulletin board, municipal newsletter, etc., are not intended to serve as a public forum and that any flags flown and any information posted or conveyed is being done as official municipal action; and
-
Local officials should maintain direct control of the use of such municipal infrastructure.
Conclusion
Notwithstanding the Court’s clarification in Shurtleff , navigating First Amendment pitfalls will undoubtedly remain a challenge for local officials. Government officials’ speech frequently aligns with that of the community they represent, which can make it is difficult to distinguish government speech that is merely influenced by public sentiment or made in response to calls for action from a municipality that has opened up its resources as a public forum. When in doubt, in addition to taking the steps previously highlighted, local officials may wish to consider explicitly stating that the speech being made is their speech, government speech. Also, when in doubt, local officials should consult their municipal attorney or call the NYCOM office at (518) 463-1185.
Endnotes
1. Shurtlef v. City of Boston, 142 S. Ct. 1583, 1589-1590, citing Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 2239, 2246 (2015).
2. Shurtlef citing Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460, 470–473. 3. Shurtleff citing Walker, in which the Court explained that license plate designs proposed by private groups “amounted to government speech because, among other reasons, the State that issued the plates ‘maintain[ed] direct control over the messages conveyed’ by ‘actively’ reviewing designs and rejecting over a dozen proposals. 576 U.S. at 213, 135 S.Ct. 2239.”
A common reaction of many municipal officials and attorneys to the Shurtleff decision is that local governments may never fly a flag other than a United States or New York State flag. Such a takeaway is not an accurate understanding of the Shurtleff decision. Local government officials may indeed fly any variety of flags on their municipal flagpoles.
30 municipal matters | Vol. 5, No. 2
Frances Uku Trustee, Village of Red Hook francesuku@redhookvillage.gov
Thursday June 19, 2025
To my Colleagues on the Red Hook Board of Trustees, and to the Residents of the Village of Red Hook,
I'm writing to formally provide context for my vote at the end of June’s Board Meeting regarding the motion to fly the Pride flag outside Village Hall from Friday June 20th through Monday June 23rd 2025. This letter is for the official record of the Village of Red Hook.
Let me be clear.
My vote was not a statement against the LGBTQ+ community or a sign of disrespect for any of our residents. My concern was solely about the appropriate role of government in representing its constituents, specifically via government speech.
I believe the Village Board is entrusted with serving and representing all residents of Red Hook equally, without selecting specific groups for special recognition or endorsement. When the government chooses to fly a flag representing one particular group, however worthy that group may be, it sets a precedent. It implicitly suggests that the government is taking a stance on behalf of that group, and by extension, potentially not taking a stance, or even neglecting, other groups within our diverse community.
I believe maintaining a position of impartial service to the entire populace is a cornerstone of good governance. The original motion to fly the flag, initiated by a former Trustee without apparent public engagement or request is particularly troubling, as the public's voice is critical to any decision a government makes on behalf of its constituents. Village Hall does not belong to the Board. It belongs to the people.
That being said, potential problems may arise with inviting public input on government speech. In 2022, the Board of Trustees of the Village of Cold Spring faced this very issue - in which they initially resolved to accept requests from the public on flag display on village property. After a pilot run, they were forced to pull back on the resolution entirely. “We didn’t think through the Pandora’s Box that was being opened,” said Mayor Kathleen Foley.
It is also worth acknowledging that the "Pride flag” has itself evolved. It is not a singular, universally agreed-upon symbol, even within the LGBTQ+ community. There are multiple versions of the Pride flag, ranging from the original Rainbow Flag designed by Gilbert Baker in 1978 to the more recent, reflecting diverse demographics and inclusions. The specific flag the Board proposes to fly may not be fully inclusive of the community it aims to honor.
My concern also fits into a broader national context regarding the proper use of governmental authority. Right now, our country is deep in dialogue and protests—such as the " No Kings " demonstrations across the country—that challenge actions by our current President. No elected official may leverage public office and its attachments, including the military, to satisfy personal agendas - they are sworn to uphold the principle of governance for all. While the scale and nature of these issues of course differ, the underlying principle remains relevant at all levels of government.
I acknowledge and respect the differing viewpoints of my fellow Board members. I understand the desire to avoid "sending the wrong message" given that the flag flew for the entire month of June last year. However, I believe that the "wrong message" would be for our local government to deviate from its core responsibility of fair representation for all. Consistency in an action that may be fundamentally flawed in principle doesn't make it right.
My vote was for governmental neutrality and for the principle that our Village Hall, and the symbols it displays, should strive to represent every resident of Red Hook, regardless of their background, beliefs, or affiliations. For the Board to be more inclusive, not less. Of course, it would take time to try and capture every resident’s wishes for government speech. As just one example, I could imagine being disappointed that Juneteenth , a federal holiday celebrating the end of a dark period of persecution in our history, worthy of note by all Americans, passed by this year without any government speech from the Village Board. But this isn't about what I personally want. If we are going to use government speech in the way we did with this flag vote, we need to do it based on the considered input of the community at large.
I am passionate about strengthening Red Hook’s role as an inclusive and welcoming community. I chose to run for this office under the party line, " A Vi!age for Everyone ." I meant it then, and I mean it even more now that you have entrusted me with this seat. I will always insist on fairness, transparent governance, and direct engagement with the public. As your elected representative, I will always work to affirm your excellent decision to make the village your home. And I will do so to the best of my ability. That was my oath of office, and if you know anything about me, you know I keep my word.
Sincerely,
Frances
Frances Uku Trustee, Vi!age of Red Hook, NY le) a francesuku@redhookvillage.gov Aq redhookvillage.org
FRA ME of REFERENCE Rebecca Ruscito, NYCOM Counsel
Mandatory Policies: What Local Governments Must Adopt
One of the first realizations newly elected public officials come to upon assuming office is that many local determinations are controlled or restricted in some degree by a state law. For example, while local governments possess extensive authority to regulate activities within their jurisdictions, New York State law dictates the procedure by which local laws are adopted.
Similarly, cities and villages may purchase goods and services as needed for public purposes, but the procedure by which those goods and services are procured is constrained by state law. Moreover, compliance with these procedural mechanisms is mandatory and courts may invalidate local actions that fail to adhere to legislatively mandated processes.
Among the state mandates imposed on local government is the requirement that municipalities adopt certain policies. In some instances, municipalities must review these policies annually. The adopted policies then control how the local government takes action when given the specific circumstances. Six of the required policies that all local governments must adopt are the: local procurement policy,[1] workplace violence prevention policy,[2] sexual harassment policy,[3] cyber security breach notification policy,[4] investment policy,[5] and the local code of ethics.[6] This article will address these mandatory policies and provide guidance to ensure the effectiveness of each. Local governments are also required to prepare a plan for the continuation of operations in the event of a state disaster emergency involving a communicable disease. This plan will be addressed in a future article.
32 Bm municipal matters | Vol. 6, No. 1 | August 2023
The six required policies that all local government must adopt are the: local procurement policy, workplace violence prevention policy, sexual harassment policy, cyber security breach notification policy, investment policy, and the local code of ethics.
Local Procurement Policy
Pursuant to General Municipal Law § 104-b, every municipality must adopt a policy that sets forth the procedures that must be followed to procure goods and services when competitive bidding is not required.[7 ] While local procurement policies may be adopted by local law, such policies are usually adopted by resolution so that modifications and changes may be incorporated into the policy easily and as needed. As with many resolutions, the resolution implementing the procurement policy should begin with a paragraph detailing its purpose, (i.e., to comply with the requirements set forth in General Municipal Law § 104-b).
The policy must then describe the procedures to be followed when the state’s competitive bidding requirements do not apply or will not be used by the municipality and include language that requires proper documentation of the costs and quotes for the purchases and services sought by the municipality. The policy must also describe the methods that the municipality will use to guarantee that the goods and services are purchased at the lowest price without any favoritism.[8]
Consistent with state policy and the objectives articulated by General Municipal Law § 104-b, all municipal purchases and contracts should be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder even when the cost is less than the competitive bidding thresholds or when the local government is following an alternative procurement method (e.g., procuring professional services). If a contract is awarded to someone other than the lowest responsible bidder, there must be documented justification detailing and explaining why the contract was so awarded and how such an award is in the best interest of the municipality.
When adopting the local procurement policy, local governments should consider a variety of factors and take into consideration local circumstances and needs, including, but my no means limited to: the size of the municipality, the expertise and workload of municipal employees, particular or unique community conditions and requirements, the aggregation of projects, fiscal considerations, different types of purchases and the selection of professional services. Additionally, the municipality should (a) detail all the procurement methods local officials may use, such as a request for proposals, a minimum number of written quotes or verbal quotes from contractors, and cost evaluations by employees, and (b) provide for when each method should be utilized. For instance, if the cost of the procurement is between $5,000-$19,999.99, the municipality could require three or more written quotes; if the cost is between $2,000- $4,999.99, the municipality could require three or more verbal quotes; and if the cost is under $1,999.99, the municipality could simply require verbal quotes. Keep in mind that these figures are suggested guide-
lines, and municipalities should exercise their discretion in drafting a policy that best suits their needs, as long as the policy complies with the standards set forth by General Municipal Law § 104-b.
Municipalities are required to review their procurement policies and procedures annually.[9] Additionally, the policy must identify the name and title of the individual(s) responsible for making purchases, updating that information every two years.[10]
Workplace Violence Prevention Policy
Pursuant to Labor Law § 27-b, every municipality must evaluate its workplace to determine the presence of factors or situations that might place employees at risk of occupational assaults and violence.[11 ] Additionally, local governments that employ 20 or more full-time employees are required to develop a written workplace violence prevention program that lists risk factors and establishes prevention methods.[12 ] The NYS Department of Labor (DOL) is responsible for overseeing and enforcing compliance with this provision of the Labor Law and has promulgated regulations that outline the law’s obligations and protections.[13 ]
The DOL regulations administering Labor Law § 27-b require that each workplace violence prevention program include the following:
-
A list of the risk factors identified in the workplace examination;
-
The methods the employer will use to prevent the incidence of workplace violence incidents;
-
A hierarchy of controls to which the program will adhere to the following: engineering controls, work practice controls, and finally personal protective equipment;
-
The methods and means by which the employer will address each specific hazard
municipal matters | Vol. 6, No. 1 | August 2023
33