Common Council sends acting-appointment review to civil service after members seek clarity on timing and oversight

Buffalo Common council members on Jan. 14 queried city officials about the use of acting appointments and voted to send the matter to the civil service process for further review.

Councilmember Wyatt asked for clarification about the item that placed an official in an acting role, saying, “Would the acting commissioner have to come before the council?” That question and follow-up discussion centered on how long someone can serve in an acting capacity and whether the mayor could use acting appointments to bypass council confirmation.

Corporation Counsel told the council that the administration typically submits a list of appointments after a general election and that appointments made before that point are treated as acting. “Submits their list of appointments after a general election and until the general election, it is considered an acting appointment for the time being,” the counsel said during the discussion. Council members said they wanted that position clarified in writing and asked staff to produce a formal explanation referencing any charter provisions or civil service rules that govern the practice.

Members moved several procedural actions during the discussion. A motion to revisit item 4 and open it for discussion was made and seconded; councilmembers later moved to rescind the earlier procedural motion and to send the item to civil service. A motion recorded in the transcript as “Motion to be sent to the service” was seconded by Councilmember Rivera and taken up by the council. Council members emphasized they were not disputing the individual appointed but were seeking a clear, written timeline and process so the council could exercise its usual oversight.

Separately, Councilmembers directed staff to request written guidance from the administration and the law department on whether and how an acting commissioner must be presented to the council for approval, and to provide any charter references or civil service rules that apply.

Votes at a glance

- Item 4 — Referral to Civil Service: Motion to send the matter of the acting appointment to civil service for review; seconded by Councilmember Rivera. (Referral taken up by the council; recorded in the meeting record.)

- Item 21 — Non-owner-occupied short-term rental ordinance amendment: Motion to adopt; seconded by Councilmember White. (Recorded motion to adopt.)

- Item 61 — Rescind unauthorized/unissued bonds (approx. $15.6 million cited in controller’s memo): Motion to send to finance for committee review; moved by a councilmember during the floor discussion and placed on the finance committee agenda for further analysis.

- Items 62–63 — Transfer of funds: Motion to approve items 62 and 63; seconded and called for approval during the meeting.

- Item 64 — Appointment of Pedro Gonzalez Ortiz as chief of staff to the council: Motion to adopt; seconded and called for adoption during the meeting.

Context and next steps

Council members asked that the civil service committee receive a written memorandum that cites any relevant charter language or civil service rules and provides a timetable for when a temporary appointment should be returned to the council for confirmation. Council members said they want to avoid a situation in which an acting official could serve for an extended, undefined period without council oversight.

The law department and council staff were asked to prepare a written response so the civil service committee can consider the legal and procedural questions at its next meeting. The transcript does not record a specific deadline for the civil service committee report or an exact timeline for when the acting appointee will appear before the council for confirmation.