By Todd De Mar

MEDIA RELEASE
The Appellant Division of the NYS Supreme Court confirms that a Firefighter
can also serve as a Member of the City Council.
A lot of the criticism that I have had to endure over the last couple of months has
centered on an assumption that no one has ever served in New York on a city council while also
serving as a firefighter. We now know that this is not true. In fact, that is exactly what
happened in Glens Falls, N.Y. in 1991.
In 1985, Daniel J. Girard was appointed as a permanent civil service firefighter for the
City of Glens Falls. In May of 1989, Firefighter Girard decided to seek a seat on the City
Council for the City of Glens Falls. At that time, his employer - the city - warned him that if he
won the election, and decided to take the council seat, that he would be fired from his position
as a firefighter.
On March 15, 1990, the Office of the New York State Attorney General was asked by the
City to issue an informal opinion on the compatibility of the two positions (see opinion 90-15). In
reaching their determination, the AG stated you have indicated that the common council has
responsibility for the preparation and adoption of the city budget which includes . . . the City Fire
Department. The council has line item approval power with respect to the budget. The council
conducts contract negotiations with the union representing City Firefighters and ultimately votes
on the contract (90-15 at 1).
The AG stated We conclude that the position of member of the Glens Falls City Council
and Firefighter in the Glens Falls City Fire Department are incompatible (90-15 at 1.)
Firefighter Girard won his election, and was sworn in on January 1, 1990. On January 2,
1990, he was dismissed from his employment as a firefighter citing City Charter Section 6.16,
City Law Section 3, General Municipal law Section 800 and common law rules. (at 2).
The case eventually reached the Appellate division of the Supreme Court. In the case of
Girard V. Glens Falls, 173 A.D. 2d. 113 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991), Daniel J. Girard was ordered
reinstated by the Court, and was awarded back pay and benefits. Importantly, the Court did not
give any deference to the opinion offered by the Attorney General, and did order him back to
work as a firefighter knowing full well that he would also be serving as a member of the City
Council. Apparently, the Court did not agree that the two positions were incompatible (or they
would never have reinstated him), and the city never challenged the determination.
I recently talked with Mr. Girard who still lives in Glens Falls, and he told me that he was
able to serve in both roles very effectively, and was able to fully discharge his official duties
without substantial difficulties or recusals. He told me that he was able to serve out his full term
and was then elected to 15 years on the school board and is now in his 10th year on the Warren
County Legislature. Mr. Girard told me that his experience as a firefighter and his advanced
knowledge his city, its people, and neighborhoods proved to be a huge benefit to him and his
constituents.
I feel that this case proves that one person can effectively serve in both positions, and
that there is no incompatibility. The city did not implode, all of the citys resources were not

By Todd De Mar
directed to the fire department, the legislative decision process did not grind to a halt , contracts
got settled, relationships remained professional, and the work of the people still got done.
Importantly, this case also set an important precedent in NewYork State. Not only did
the Court order it, but the fact that it actually worked proves compatibility. I can see no reason
why the current Supreme Court would not follow the precedent that was established in the
Girard Case. This is definitive proof, over mere speculation, that it can be done, and done
effectively. Remember, lower courts are required to follow the precedent of higher courts (i.e.
binding precedent).
The City of Watertown is being stubborn and foolish by going down the same road that
Glens Falls went down and not expecting the same result. In the law, what has been done, will
be done. Faced with these facts, I think that it would be reckless for the City to fire me and
would likely end with the same result; costly litigation, followed by reinstatement with back pay
and benefits. Lets end this foolish game and get on to doing the business of the people.