New York Assembly Bill A05090

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/12/25
• Refer: 2/12/25
• Refer: 1/7/26

Caption

Prohibits certain persons from receiving compensation for legal fees, consulting, or other work performed for an industrial development agency, an economic assistance corporation or state or local authority; relates to consultant disclosure requirements.

Summary

This bill expands New York’s conflict-of-interest and disclosure rules for public officials and consultants connected to state and local authorities, industrial development agencies, and economic assistance corporations. It would prohibit statewide elected officials, state officers and employees, legislators and legislative employees, political party chairs, and municipal officers and employees from receiving compensation for legal fees, consulting, or other contractual services from a state or local authority when they are directly contracted for the work, or when they own or control at least 10 percent of the contracting entity. The bill also updates existing ethics language to use gender-neutral terms such as “they” and “chair.” In addition, the bill creates a new disclosure regime for consultants and related service providers working on projects involving financial assistance from an agency. Covered entities would have to file disclosure statements identifying the provider, the nature and scope of services, the engagement period, compensation, and the contract or retainer arrangement if available. These disclosures would be filed with the agency and the Authorities Budget Office, posted publicly online, and updated annually for ongoing engagements. Failure to file could trigger investigation and disqualification from future agency projects for up to two years.

Impact

The bill amends the Public Officers Law, the Public Authorities Law, and the General Municipal Law. It broadens existing ethics restrictions to cover compensation from state or local authorities for legal, consulting, and other contractual services, and it adds a new disclosure and enforcement mechanism for consultants involved in projects receiving agency financial assistance. The practical effect is to tighten oversight of relationships between public officials, politically connected individuals, and public authorities, while increasing transparency around consultant payments and project-related services.

Sentiment

No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or partisan division in the available record. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to be framed as an ethics and transparency reform, suggesting a generally anti-corruption, pro-disclosure purpose. The absence of recorded opposition or amendments beyond the introduced changes limits any stronger conclusion about legislative sentiment.

Contention

The main policy tension is between stronger ethics enforcement and the burden the bill places on officials, consultants, developers, and agencies. Supporters would likely view the bill as closing loopholes that allow public officials or politically connected parties to profit from authority contracts, while critics may argue that the 10 percent ownership threshold and broad coverage of “consulting” or “other contractual expenditure for services” could sweep in legitimate business relationships. The new public disclosure requirements and the possibility of a two-year disqualification may also be seen as significant compliance and enforcement tools, which could draw concern from affected service providers and public authorities.