New York State's medical fee schedules revised proposal update

In keeping with the goals of the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) to provide quality and efficient care to injured workers, and in response to comments received during the public comment period, the Board plans to file a revised proposal for the updates to the Official New York Workers’ Compensation Medical Fee Schedules.  

This revised proposal will be published soon in the State Register and on the Board’s website. A Subject Number will be issued when it is published. 

Questions? 

Email Regulations@wcb.ny.gov with questions. 

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli posts local government and school audits on the Internet

On August 24, 2026, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following local government and school audits were posted on the Internet.

Click on the text highlighted in COLOR to access the audit.

Brentwood Union Free School District – Building Access (Suffolk County)  District officials could improve how they manage and monitor building access accounts and devices. Specifically, of the accounts auditors reviewed, the district had active, but unneeded, accounts with assigned badges in the system. As a result, there was a potential risk for unauthorized access to district school buildings, compromising building security and safety.

Broadalbin-Perth Central School District – Building Access (Fulton County, Montgomery County and Saratoga County) District officials did not properly manage and monitor building access accounts and devices. Specifically, of the accounts auditors reviewed, the district had active, but unneeded, accounts with assigned badges in the system.

East Rochester Union Free School District – Building Access (Monroe County) District officials did not properly manage and monitor building access accounts and devices. Specifically, of the accounts auditors reviewed, the district had active, but unneeded, accounts with assigned badges in the system.

Fort Johnson Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. – Board Oversight (Montgomery County) The board did not provide adequate oversight of financial operations. It did not adopt comprehensive bylaws and written financial policies and procedures to help ensure financial transactions were properly authorized, recorded and reported. The board also did not review and approve disbursements before payment, implement an effective claims auditing process, regularly review financial reports or provide guidance to the treasurer on maintaining accounting records. The board did not maintain meeting minutes, file required foreign fire insurance tax proceeds reports with DiNapoli’s office or monitor the company’s loan program.

Green Island Union Free School District – Building Access (Albany County) District officials did not properly manage and monitor building access accounts and devices. Specifically, of the accounts auditors reviewed, the district had active, but unneeded, accounts with assigned badges in the system.

Hopkinton Fire District – Claims Auditing (St. Lawrence County) Auditors reviewed 47 claims totaling $145,549. Except for minor discrepancies, which auditors discussed with district officials, the claims were adequately supported, for proper district purposes and authorized before payment. There were no recommendations as a result of this audit.

Ischua Fire District – Claims Auditing and Annual Financial Reports (Cattaraugus County) The board did not properly audit claims prior to payment and the district’s annual financial reports have not been filed with the State Comptroller’s office for more than 15 years. Without a thorough and documented audit of claims, the district had an increased risk for improper or unauthorized expenditures to be paid and that errors, irregularities, or misuse of funds could go undetected and uncorrected.

Moravia Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. – Treasurer’s Duties (Cayuga County) The treasurers did not properly account for all receipts and disbursements. As a result, the board of directors lacked reliable information that was needed to manage the company’s financial activities, and assurance that receipts were properly collected, recorded, safeguarded and deposited and disbursements were adequately supported, properly approved, accurately recorded and made for appropriate company purposes.

Niskayuna Central School District – Building Access (Albany County, Saratoga County and Schenectady County) District officials did not properly manage and monitor building access accounts and devices. Specifically, of the accounts auditors reviewed, the district had active, but unneeded, accounts with assigned badges in the system.

Onondaga Cortland Madison (OCM) Board of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) – Building Access (Onondaga County, Cortland County and Madison County) OCM BOCES officials did not properly manage and monitor building access accounts and devices. Specifically, of the accounts auditors reviewed, OCM BOCES had active, but unneeded, accounts with assigned badges in the system.

Union-Endicott Central School District – Building Access (Broome County and Tioga County) District officials did not properly manage and monitor building access accounts and devices. Specifically, of the accounts auditors reviewed, the district had active, but unneeded, accounts with assigned badges in the system.

Town of Wilton – Cybersecurity (Saratoga County)  Town officials did not adequately safeguard network and cloud-based user account access from cybersecurity threats. As a result, town officials cannot be assured that information technology (IT) systems are secured and protected against unauthorized use, access, manipulation and loss.

Village of Cassadaga – Cybersecurity (Chautauqua County) The board and village officials did not provide adequate governance to safeguard IT assets from cybersecurity threats. Because the board and officials did not establish and maintain a comprehensive IT asset inventory, they could not effectively track these assets through their lifecycle. Additionally, policy, oversight and other internal control weaknesses increased the risk that IT assets and the data contained in IT systems could be lost, damaged or compromised.

Village of Lacona – Cybersecurity (Oswego County) The board and officials did not provide adequate governance to safeguard IT systems from cybersecurity threats. The board and officials did not develop or adopt written IT policies, provide employees with cybersecurity awareness training or develop an IT contingency plan to help minimize the risk of data loss or suffering a serious operational interruption.

Village of Medina – Water and Sewer Billing and Collections (Orleans County) Although auditors determined $296,867 of water and sewer collections were deposited timely and intact, the clerk-treasurer did not ensure water and sewer user charges were billed accurately or that delinquent accounts were managed in accordance with village code and board-adopted policies. The clerk-treasurer also did not establish clear written procedures for collecting and depositing user charges, properly segregating duties or providing adequate oversight of billing and collection activities.

###

Additional compensation to be paid to employees of a school district for additional services must be transparent and prospective

In three separate appeals, Petitioners sought to annul an agreement between the Board of Education of the School District [Board] and its deputy superintendent [DS] providing for the DS to assume the duties of the Superintendent.  Petitioners named multiple board members, school officials, and the school attorney [Respondents]. Because the appeals presented similar issues of fact and law, they were consolidated for decision by the Commissioner of Education [See 8 NYCRR 275.18]. 

DS had agreed, in addition to her current responsibilities, to assume the duties of acting superintendent while the superintendent was on leave of absence. The board then negotiated a “pay differential” with DS  to compensate her for these additional duties and the Board retroactively approved payment to the DS in the amount of $200 per day from July 1 through September 3, 2025 [the addendum]. 

Petitioners contended that the Board lacked authority to compensate DS for her additional services because her contract already required that DS “[s]erve in the absence of the Superintendent as the Chief Administrative Officer of the District” and argued that "any additional compensation constitutes an illegal gift of public funds".  Ultimately, Petitioners appealed to the Commissioner of Education, seeking, among other relief, an order precluding the Board from implementing the addendum and the reimbursement of any funds paid to DS already paid to DS pursuant to the addendum.

The Board argued that the appeals (1) must be dismissed for improper service and (2) on the merits as the addendum "appropriately compensated [DS] for services rendered above and beyond the scope of [DS's] existing duties".

Commissioner Rosa, noting that in an appeal to the Commissioner the petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and the burden of establishing the facts upon which he or she seeks relief, found that Petitioners had not satisfied these burdens.

The Commissioner said she agreed with Respondents that paragraph 11 of DS's contract, which requires her to “[s]erve] in the absence of the Superintendent as the Chief Administrative Officer of the District,” does not preclude DS from receiving additional compensation for such services and found that the provision addressing the "chain of command in the superintendent’s absence" is not meant to cover “prolonged absence[s]” such as that which occurred in the instant situation.

In the words of Dr. Rosa: "As proof, [Respondents] attach a copy of the most recent [DS's] contract", which includes “duties well beyond those set forth” in paragraph 11, including 'budget formulation and administration, pupil course of study and curriculum, public relations, personnel management and labor relations.'  Thus, the board did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in compensating [DS] for her service as acting superintendent in summer 2025."

Addressing Petitioners' argument that the additional compensation paid to DS constituted a gift of public funds within the meaning of Article VIII, Section I of the New York Constitution, the Commissioner, citing Appeal of Moss, 59 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,861, said “This section generally prohibits the expenditure of school district money for the benefit of private parties unless it is in furtherance of a proper public purpose and is undertaken pursuant to a … properly authorized contract under which the municipality receives fair and adequate consideration”.  Here, the board received additional consideration in the form of additional duties performed by DS.  

The Commissioner concluded her decision by observing that "While the appeals must be dismissed, I admonish the board to ensure that all agreements to provide additional compensation to district employees are transparent and prospective.  Retroactive payments create an appearance of impropriety, even where, as here, there is no evidence that such impropriety occurred".

Click HERE to access the Commissioner of Education's decision posted on the Internet.