Selected items posted on the Internet during the week ending April 17, 2026

City & State published an op-ed contribution by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli. The item addresses the need for companies to be transparent about how Artificial Intelligence (AI) is impacting layoffs, entry level jobs and long-term growth.  DOWNLOAD

From Buzz to Benefit: Making AI Mission-Relevant Public sector leaders are under pressure to turn AI from a promising concept into measurable impact, but many initiatives stall at the pilot stage. This paper explores how agencies can move beyond experimentation by aligning AI investments with mission-driven priorities and address common barriers like cost and governance. DOWNLOAD

Fighting AI with AI: How State and Local Governments Can Stop Fraud This thought leadership paper covers common misconceptions about AI in identity verification and the technology components agencies need to combat to prevent AI-driven fraud. Read more to learn how your agency can enhance its approach to identity verification. DOWNLOAD

Plan, Act, Recover: Disaster Preparedness in the Public Sector This research report reveals how state and local leaders are using real-time data, AI, and better communication tools to respond to disasters faster and recover stronger. See what 250 public sector leaders say they need to improve. Download

Why Identity Is Now Core HHS Infrastructure For HHS agencies, identity verification is no longer a support support function. This paper explains how modern identity platforms give agencies a consistent, risk-based way to verify new applicants and returning beneficiaries. DOWNLOAD 

Improving Emergency Response with Modern Cellular Networks This e-book features real-world examples from police, fire, EMS, and 911 agencies that have strengthened connectivity across vehicles, stations, and temporary command sites. DOWNLOAD

AI Is Reshaping Criminal Justice. The Real Question Is How We Govern It AI can improve efficiency and fairness — but only with strong oversight and accountability.   READ NOW

Creating the Modern Government Workplace Learn how to design modern government workplaces, from meeting space planning to collaboration tools and IT support. WATCH NOW

AI in the Room: Making Public Collaboration Smarter, Not Harder Learn how AI-powered meeting tools improve accessibility, collaboration and engagement for hybrid public sector teams. WATCH NOW

ITSM Complexity to Clarity: Modernizing with No-Code and AI Learn how to bring clarity to ITSM complexity through no-code automation, AI and modern ITSM strategies. WATCH NOW  

Content + AI: The Future of Public Service Strategies to help government leaders scale secure, compliant AI solutions. WATCH NOW 

Flexible Tech Strategies for Uncertain Terrain Get fresh insights and actionable advice into the shifting government landscape and making the most of your technology investments. WATCH NOW 

Building Resilient Government Services for Rural Communities Learn how rural agencies are scaling services, reducing risk, and improving access with automation, data sharing, and cross-agency collaboration. WATCH NOW

Employee terminated after being found guilty of having posted items that featured biased and discriminatory language and images on Facebook

In this CPLR Article 78 action Plaintiff sought judicial review of a revised determination of the New York State Office of Court Administration's Deputy Chief Administrative Judge adoption of the report and recommendations of a disciplinary hearing officer, made after a hearing, finding that the Plaintiff was guilty of misconduct and recommended the termination the Petitioner's employment as a court officer. 

Plaintiff had been employed as a court officer by the New York State Unified Court System [UCS] for approximately 14 years and it was alleged Plaintiff had engaged in specified acts of misconduct when Plaintiff shared 26 posts on Facebook that featured biased and discriminatory language and images. Plaintiff denied the charge.

At the conclusion of Plaintiff's disciplinary hearing, the hearing officer issued a report finding Plaintiff guilty of each specified act of misconduct and recommended that the Plaintiff be terminated. The Deputy Chief Administrative Judge adopted the hearing officer's report and recommendations and terminated the Plaintiff's employment. Thereafter, the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge issued a revised determination in which he again adopted the hearing officer's report and recommendation and terminated the Plaintiff's employment. 

Plaintiff then commenced a proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking judicial review of the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge's revised determination. 

The Appellate Division, in its decision, noted:

1. In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78, "Judicial review of an administrative determination made after a hearing required by law, at which evidence was taken, is limited to whether that determination is supported by substantial evidence" (see Matter of Afolayan v Industrial Bd. of Appeals, 229 AD3d 698]";

2. "Substantial evidence is such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact", which is a "minimal standard", demanding only that a given inference is reasonable and plausible, not necessarily the most probable; and

3. "Where substantial evidence exists, the reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency, even if the court would have decided the matter differently".

The Appellate Division found that Plaintiff's alleged misconduct was supported by substantial evidence as "OCA demonstrated that the biased nature of the [Plaintiff's] comments, which were connected to a public Facebook profile that identified him as a Sergeant with UCS, and violated the internal rules and regulations, as well as the ethical codes, of UCS". The Appellate Division then said "given the public facing nature of the [Plaintiff's] position in a system that requires fairness and equality, the administrative record supports the conclusion that the bias illustrated by the [Plaintiff's] posts negatively impacted UCS's ability to maintain neutrality and serve vulnerable populations".

Addressing Plaintiff's contention that the revised disciplinary determination violate Plaintiff's First Amendment right to free speech, the Appellate Division opined that OCA had met its burden of establishing that discipline arising out of the Plaintiff's otherwise protected activity was justified. Further, the Appellate Division opined that the revised determination did not violate the Plaintiff's First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion, "because the prohibition on discriminatory speech was neutral with respect to religion and generally applicable to all UCS employees".

Turning to the disciplinary penalty imposed on Plaintiff, the Appellate Division noted that such review "is limited to whether the measure or mode of penalty or discipline imposed constitutes an abuse of discretion as a matter of law" and the administrative penalty imposed "must be upheld unless it is so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness".

The Appellate Division concluded that, contrary to the Plaintiff's contention, the "penalty of termination of employment was not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness", confirmed the revised disciplinary determination, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding, citing Matter of Phelps v State of N.Y.—Unified Ct. Sys., 208 AD3 880 and Sekul v City of Poughkeepsie, 195 AD3d 622.

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.

Grouping students with disabilities for purposes of instruction

On April 15, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, certified the question set out below to the New York State Court of Appeals:

“When a student is covered by more than one class size regulation under §200.6(h)(4), do the varying restrictions serve as distinct requirements that must be independently fulfilled or as a list of class size options from which the DOE  may pick?” 

The Court of Appeals responded, concluding that the required classroom sizes described in [8 N.Y.C.R.R.] §200.6(h)(4) represent alternative placements, rather than stacking requirements, for students with the described levels of management needs and disabilities.

In light of Court of Appeals' response, the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the federal district court, holding:

Students with disabilities placed together for purposes of special education (including resource room, special class, consultant teacher services, integrated co-teaching and related services groups) must be grouped by similarity of individual needs in accordance with the four need areas of:

• Academic achievement, functional performance and learning characteristics
• Social Development
• Physical Development
• Management Needs 

Click HERE to access the Second Circuit's ruling posted on the Internet.

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli issued the municipal and school audits listed below on April 14, 2026

Audit reports for the following local governments and school districts were posted on the Internet by the New York State Comptroller on April 14, 2026.New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli issued the municipal and school audits listed below on April 14, 2026 

Click on the text highlighted in color to access the reports posted on the Internet.

City of Mechanicville – Separation Payments (Saratoga County) City officials did not ensure the accuracy of employee separation payments. As a result, three employees received questionable or unsupported payments totaling $15,766 of vacation payouts due to miscalculations and an ineligible retirement incentive. Specifically, auditors determined that three payments totaling $37,118 were inconsistent with the city’s handbook and collective bargaining agreements, which may have resulted in the overpayments. Auditors also found that officials did not have adequate policies or written procedures in place to guide how separation payments should be calculated, approved and reviewed.

City of Mechanicville – Procurement (Saratoga County) Auditors found that officials did not always procure goods and services in accordance with policy, statutory requirements or good business practices. Officials made purchases without proper oversight, did not maintain records and did not consistently use a competitive process. Of the sample of 35 purchases totaling $2.26 million reviewed, auditors identified 24 purchases totaling approximately $760,000 that did not comply with the procurement policy or statutory requirements. While the city’s procurement policy was inadequate and inconsistent, it did require department heads to verify that funds were available before making purchases. However, the finance office did not have updated accounting records. Consequently, department heads made purchases without confirming there were available budget appropriations, which led to financial discrepancies and inefficiencies.

City of Mechanicville – Financial Oversight (Saratoga County) The mayor and city officials did not provide oversight of financial operations. As a result, the council could not fully assess the city’s financial condition or make informed decisions. The commissioner did not maintain current accounting records or ensure financial reports were accurate. Bank reconciliations were either not completed or contained large, unresolved variances. Also, the commissioner did not submit two years of annual financial reports (AFRs) to DiNapoli’s office in a timely manner, as required by law. The mayor also did not establish formal procedures to monitor financial reporting or verify the accuracy of accounting records.

Village of Sherburne – Budgeting (Chenango County) The board adopted budgets that underestimated revenues in the general fund and overestimated appropriations in the general, water and sewer funds. As a result, the board levied more taxes than were needed to fund the village’s operations. The board also generated unplanned operating surpluses totaling approximately $1.1 million despite having planned for operating deficits totaling $1.3 million. As a result, none of the appropriated fund balance was needed or used. In addition, the unrestricted fund balance increased by approximately $1.1 million in the general, water and sewer funds. Lastly, the budgets for the 2022-23 through 2025-26 fiscal years did not comply with state law or guidance from DiNapoli’s office and lacked sufficient detail, which reduced transparency and limited effective financial planning.

Village of Victory – Records and Reports (Saratoga County) The clerk-treasurer did not maintain accurate and complete accounting records, provide the board with adequate monthly reports or file AFRs in a timely manner, which limited the board’s ability to monitor financial operations. The clerk-treasurer also did not properly prepare bank reconciliations or budget status reports, which lacked pertinent information. As of Sept. 10, 2025, AFRs were filed between 41 and 1,322 days late.

Village of Youngstown – Employee Benefits and Payroll (Niagara County) Village officials did not maintain accurate leave records or ensure payroll payments were properly approved and supported. Employees received payouts and used leave without proper authorization, including $9,802 in unsupported payments, 1,524 unapproved leave hours and 313 compensatory hours accrued without authorization. In addition, village officials made inaccurate payroll payments totaling approximately $2,500.

Village of Churchville – Procurement (Monroe County) Village officials did not consistently solicit competition in accordance with statutory requirements or its procurement policy. Of the approximately $1.4 million in goods and services reviewed, auditors determined officials did not seek competition for purchases totaling $664,748. Specifically, village officials did not always issue requests for proposals, ensure the village received the New York State Office of General Services contract price in lieu of competitively bidding, or obtain the minimum number of written quotes required by the village’s procurement policy. For two purchases totaling $31,397, officials did not obtain any written quotes. In addition, the village’s procurement policy did not include details on when board approval was required prior to making purchases, and officials signed and approved their own purchases.

Plainville Fire District – Audit Follow-Up (Onondaga County) The review assessed the Plainville Fire District’s progress in implementing recommendations in the audit, Plainville Fire District – Board Oversight, released in October 2021. The audit determined that the board did not provide adequate oversight of the district’s financial operations and exceeded its authority by allowing the district treasurer to pay all recurring expenditures without the board’s prior review or approval. To help the board ensure that it provides adequate oversight of fire district operations, the audit contained eight recommendations. The board fully implemented four recommendations, partially implemented three and did not implement one. Until all recommendations are addressed, the board cannot ensure district assets are appropriately safeguarded.

South Orangetown Central School District – Audit Follow-Up (Rockland County) The review assessed the South Orangetown Central School District’s progress in implementing recommendations in the audit, South Orangetown Central School District – Network User Accounts, released in August 2022. The audit determined that district officials did not ensure network user accounts were adequately managed. The audit report contained four recommendations. While district officials fully implemented one recommendation, they only partially implemented the remaining three recommendations. As a result, the district’s network continued to have increased risk for unauthorized access, misuse or data loss.

Woodbourne Fire District – Audit Follow-Up (Sullivan County) The review assessed the Woodbourne Fire District’s progress in implementing recommendations in the audit, Woodbourne Fire District – Board Oversight, released in December 2023. The audit determined that the board and treasurer did not provide adequate oversight of the district’s financial operations. The audit contained 10 recommendations. The district fully implemented three recommendations, partially implemented four, and did not implement three recommendations. Until all are addressed, the board cannot ensure financial operations are properly monitored or assets are safeguarded.

###

Terms of a collective bargaining agreement and a memorandum of understanding required the exhaustion of administrative remedies

Plaintiff, an assistant principal, commenced this action alleging that the New York City Department of Education [Employer] retaliated against her after she reported a violation of Social Services Law §413 by her then-principal and that she was constructively discharged from her position by Employer.

Noting that a public employee may be required to arbitrate such a claim where the employee "is subject to dismissal or other disciplinary action under a final and binding arbitration provision" or where the employee "is subject to a collectively negotiated agreement [CBA] which contains provisions preventing an employer from taking adverse personnel actions and which contains a final and binding arbitration provision to resolve alleged violations of such provisions of the agreement".

Pursuant to the terms of the relevant CBA between Plaintiff's union and the Employer, grievances which are not resolved after a two-step internal process must be submitted to arbitration. 

The CBA defines a "grievance," and a subsequent Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between Plaintiff's union and Employer, which "by its terms became part and parcel of the CBA", added an antiretaliation provision that provides, among other things, "The harassment, intimidation, retaliation and discrimination of any kind because an employee in good faith raises a concern or reports a violation or suspected violation of any Department policy, rule/law/regulation or contractual provision ... is prohibited."

Observing that the MOA was incorporated into the CBA, the Appellate Division opined that Plaintiff's claims of retaliation in violation of the MOA's antiretaliation provision constitutes a grievance within the meaning of the CBA.

The Appellate Division held that Plaintiff "was required to grieve her complaint before commencing this action" and that Supreme Court had properly granted the Employer's "motion to dismiss based on [Plaintiff's] failure to exhaust her administrative remedies".

The Appellate Division also noted Plaintiff's "course of conduct in demanding arbitration, citing ... the CBA's grievance procedures and the MOA's antiretaliation provision,  confirms that the arbitration of the [Plaintiff's] claim was required".

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.