New York State's Commissioner of Education directs the respondent school districts to allow all students to access the school districts' facilities that most closely align with their gender identity

Petitioners in this administrative appeal to New York State's Commissioner of Education, Dr. Betty A. Rosa, the parents of transgender students attending the Respondent New York State public school districts, contended that:

[1] Certain resolutions adopted by the two Respondent school districts were "arbitrary and capricious because [of their reliance] upon an erroneous interpretation of federal law"; and 

[2] Certain resolutions adopted by the two Respondent school districts "prohibiting transgender and gender nonconforming students from using facilities that align with their gender identity are contrary to State law, including [New York State's] Dignity for All Students Act".  

The Petitioners sought annulment of the Respondents' resolutions and that the Commissioner direct the Respondent school districts to permit their transgender children "to access school facilities, including bathrooms and locker rooms, that align with their gender identity".

Commissioner Rosa sustained the Petitioners' appeals.

In consideration of the scope of Commissioner Rosa's decision, rather than attempt to summarize the Commissioner's comprehensive ruling, NYPPL has elected to recommend that the reader click on Decision No. 18,726 | Office of Counsel to access the Commissioner's decision posted on the Internet.

Appellate Division affirms Supreme Court's denial of Plaintiff's motions seeking a writ of mandamus and the recusal of the presiding justice in a CPLR Article 78 proceeding

Supreme Court granted

[1] the City of New York's cross-motion to dismiss Plaintiff's petition seeking to compel the City's Department of Investigation [DOI] to investigate alleged criminal activity targeting Plaintiff while she was employed by the New York City Public Advocate's Office; and

[2] the City's motion dismissing Plaintiff's CPLR Article 78 action; but 

[3] rejected the Plaintiff's efforts seeking the designated Justice's voluntary "recusal" in the Article 78 matter. Plaintiff appealed.

The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed Plaintiff lack of success in obtaining a writ of mandamus in Supreme Court, explaining that a writ of mandamus may be sought "to enforce the performance of a ministerial duty", but a writ of mandamus cannot be used "to compel an act in respect to which a public officer may exercise judgment or discretion".

Observing that DOI's decision not to investigate the matter was neither arbitrary and nor capricious, the Appellate Division directed the Public Advocate's Office to have [Plaintiff] report the alleged criminal conduct to the police.

Addressing Plaintiff's efforts seeking the "self-recusal" of the assigned Justice in the CPLR Article 78 action, the Appellate Division opined that Supreme Court providently rejected Plaintiff's efforts concerning the recusal of the assigned Justice as the assigned Justice was not a party to and had not been an attorney or counsel "in this proceeding". 

Nor, said the Appellate Division, did Plaintiff contend that the assigned Justice "had 'an interest' in the proceeding or was related to the parties" and in the absence "of any statutorily mandated disqualification and any legitimate suggestions of bias or impartiality" which Plaintiff could have demonstrated, the assigned Justice's decision "not to recuse" was appropriate as a matter of personal conscience.

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

OATH Administrative Law Judge recommends the Appointing Authority suspend the employee for 30-day without pay rather than terminate the employee found guilty of misconduct

New York City's Office of Administrative Trials and Hearing [OATH] Administrative Law Judge [ALJ] Michael D. Turilli recommended that a 30-day suspension without pay be imposed as the disciplinary penalty on the Respondent, an Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (“OCME”) motor vehicle operator, rather that terminating the employee from the position as proposed by the appointing authority. 

OCME alleged that Respondent acted negligently by entering a decedent’s home unaccompanied by the police officer who waited outside and brought OCME into disrepute when the New York Post reported that he was criminally charged with stealing a handbag from the decedent. 

The ALJ granted Respondent’s motion to preclude footage from the officer’s body worn camera after finding that such footage was sealed by New York State's Criminal Procedural Law as official records relating to Respondent’s arrest and prosecution, but permitted the introduction of surveillance video because recordings made in a private building in the regular course of business are not official records. 

Relying on the recordings, OCME employee testimony, and documentary evidence, the ALJ found that Respondent inefficiently, negligently, or carelessly performed his duties by entering decedent’s apartment without police supervision in violation of an unambiguous agency directive and OCME’s common practice. 

However, the ALJ found that OCME failed to prove Respondent brought the agency into disrepute, finding that while the New York Post article may have brought OCME negative attention, it focused on the theft of the bag, a criminal charge of which Respondent was acquitted, and which was neither alleged nor proven at Petitioner's OATH trial. 

Accordingly, the ALJ found that the 30-day suspension, rather than termination from the position, was the appropriate penalty to impose on Respondent under the circumstances.   

Click HERE to access Judge Turilli findings and recommended penalty.

Recent New York State audits of municipalities posted on the Internet

On May 1, 2026 New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced that the following local government audits were issued.

Click on the text highlighted in color to access the audit report.

Town of Alexander – Town Clerk/Tax Collector (Genesee County) The former clerk did not properly record, deposit, report or remit collections, and did not process transactions in a timely manner. The former clerk was arrested in July 2024 and arraigned on charges of grand larceny, falsifying business records, forgery and corrupting the government. In January 2025, the former clerk pleaded guilty to petit larceny, resigned from the position and made restitution to the town. Auditors also found that annual collections recorded decreased by approximately $17,000 (43%) from 2018, the year prior to the former clerk taking office, to 2022.

Town of Davenport – Transparency of Fiscal Activities (Delaware County)  The board did not conduct, or provide for, an annual audit of the supervisor’s financial records and reports for fiscal year 2024, as required by law. The supervisor filed the 2024 annual financial report with DiNapoli’s office 152 days past the statutory deadline. The supervisor also did not properly maintain financial information for liabilities and fund equity in the balance sheet reports, hindering the board’s ability to monitor the town’s financial operations throughout the year.

Town of Sodus – Transparency of Fiscal Activities (Wayne County) The board did not conduct, or provide for, an annual audit of the supervisor’s financial records and reports for fiscal year 2024, as required by law. The supervisor also failed to prepare or file annual financial reports for fiscal years 2021 through 2024. Lastly, the supervisor did not perform monthly bank reconciliations, provide the board with financial reports or ensure that seven highway department employees were paid the correct overtime wages.

Howard Public Library – Board Oversight (Steuben County)  The board did not provide adequate oversight of financial operations. As a result, the board lacked the necessary financial information to manage the library’s financial condition and could not ensure its financial activities were adequately accounted for, recorded and reported. Consequently, the library had an increased risk of budgetary issues and services impact as well as increased risk of theft, waste and abuse of resources.

Cuylerville Volunteer Fire Department Inc. – Financial Oversight (Livingston County)  Department officials and membership did not provide adequate oversight of financial operations because they did not adopt a code of ethics, detailed bylaws or financial policies or enforce the limited financial provisions in the bylaws. They also did not adequately segregate financial duties, implement compensating controls or provide guidance related to recording and reporting financial transactions to the treasurer.

Town of Knox – Transparency of Fiscal Activities (Albany County) The board did not conduct, or provide for, an annual audit of the supervisor’s financial records and reports for fiscal year 2024, as required by law. The supervisor also did not prepare or file annual financial reports for fiscal years 2021 through 2024. In addition, the supervisor did not provide the board with complete, accurate and reliable monthly financial reports.

###

Selected items from Blogs posted during the week ending May 2, 2026

2026 AI Risk and Readiness Report Most organizations are making decisions about AI security without a full picture of how it’s being used across their environment. Based on new data from over 1,200 cybersecurity professionals, this report highlights where those visibility gaps commonly exist and what they mean for managing data and risk. DOWNLOAD

The H.R. 1 Mandate: Modernizing Medicaid and SNAP H.R. 1 adds substantial administrative obligations to Medicaid and food assistance programs. Learn why automation is essential to handle growing workloads and complexity. DOWNLOAD

The Tech Helping Teams Get Work Done Explore how public sector leaders are adopting AI, automation, and safety technologies to solve today’s workforce challenges. This new research highlights what’s working, what workers want, and where public agencies are seeing real ROI across operations, training, and service delivery. DOWNLOAD

Inside the 2026 ISAC Annual Summit: Cybersecurity Priorities for the Decade Ahead Three days. Nine tracks. Real solutions for modern cybersecurity challenges. Learn More and Register Now 

What’s Next for Your PeopleSoft Environment? See how organizations are planning the future of their PeopleSoft environments in Washington, DC on May 12. Reserve your spot

AI Fraud: Can Your Agency's Defenses Keep Up? 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

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

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

Local Data Protections in Automated Enforcement Explore how cities protect data privacy while using automated enforcement systems responsibly. READ NOW

The 2026 State of Digital Government Report Government teams aren’t short on data, they’re short on clarity. This report breaks down how leading agencies are turning fragmented insights into faster services, higher participation, and measurable outcomes. Backed by benchmarks from nearly 1,300 public sector professionals, it outlines what’s working right now and where gaps are quietly costing time, trust, and resources. DOWNLOAD

Navigating H.R. 1 SNAP Challenges It’s no secret that stricter work and income requirements may increase your administrative burden. Download Checklist

Securing the Reset: How Idaho Strengthened Security and Governance This case study explores how transitioning to a FedRAMP-authorized environment enabled greater accountability, streamlined operations and enhanced protection of sensitive data, while reducing the burden of legacy systems. DOWNLOAD

Balancing Security, Staffing, and System Demands Join IT leaders in Washington, DC on May 12 to learn how agencies are balancing security demands with limited resources. Learn More

Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that New York's Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Law is not a firefighter's exclusive remedy for an injury suffered while traveling to a reported boat fire aboard a ship owned by the Fire District

A former volunteer firefighter [Firefighter] with the Fire District [District]  appealed the grant of the District's motion for summary judgment by a United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Firefighter had suffered injury to his foot while traveling aboard a ship owned by the District to the reported site of a boat fire on the Hudson River when Firefighter extended his leg to fend off a collision with another vessel. 

Having previously obtained compensation under New York State’s Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Law, Firefighter filed the instant claim in response to the District’s petition in the United States District Court seeking to limit its liability to the value of the vessel pursuant to the Limitation of Liability Act of 1851, 46 U.S.C. §30523, and Rule F of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty and Maritime Claims.

Firefighter's claim alleged (i) negligence and unseaworthiness pursuant to the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30104; (ii) unseaworthiness under Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U.S. 85 (1946); and (iii) negligence under general maritime law. 

A Federal District Court had granted the District's motion for summary judgment, holding that the Firefighter was not eligible to bring claims pursuant to the Jones Act or Sieracki, and that Firefighter's exclusive remedy were those provided by New York’s Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Law, and that Firefighter was prohibited to bring a general maritime law claim.  Firefighter appealed the District Court’s ruling, with the exception of the District's Court's denial of the Firefighter's Jones Act claim.

The Second Circuit held that the District Court erred in granting the District's motion for  summary judgment after finding that Firefighter was not entitled to the warranty of seaworthiness extended to a Sieracki seaman and in ruling that New York’s Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Law barred Firefighter's federal negligence claim under general maritime law.

In the words of the Second Circuit, "Although only a small part of [Firefighter's] employment took place on the navigable waters, and he therefore was not a seaman under the Jones Act, on the occasions when he was engaged in a firefighting mission on the waters aboard the [District's ship] his work was distinctly maritime. This case is unlike the cases of injuries to land workers, whose presence on a ship was only for transportation to their land-based jobs". "If [Firefighter's] job, when joining a firefighting mission on [the District's vessel] was to do waterborne firefighting and rescue, that job was no less maritime while he was doing it than it would have been if he had been permanent crew to a firefighting vessel. [Firefighter] asserts that he was in the bow preparing to secure the vessel and that when he extended his foot, his purpose was to avoid a collision, both tasks being seaman’s jobs carrying seaman’s risks. Neither the Fire District nor the [District Court] has advanced a persuasive reason for granting summary judgment dismissing [Firefighter's] claims."

The Second Circuit said it concluded that the reasons giving effect to the State’s exclusive remedy provision so as to deprive Firefighter of whatever maritime remedies he can prove would “work material prejudice to the characteristic features of the general maritime law, [and] interfere with the proper harmony and uniformity of that law in its international and interstate relations.”

While the Second Circuit said it disavowed any automatic conclusion that “wherever a maritime interest is involved, no matter how slight or marginal, it must displace a local interest, no matter how pressing and significant,” the Circuit Court said it read the Supreme Court precedents "as protecting the applicability of maritime remedies, as against conflicting state law, when, federal maritime tort policy engages sufficiently with the facts, so that displacement of the federal remedy because of a state’s exclusivity provision would impair uniformity of the federal maritime law". 

The Court of Appeals vacated the District Court's judgment and remanded the matter to the District Court for further consideration, stating that "We leave it to the proceedings in the district court on remand to determine whether this evidence should be believed and whether [Firefighter] was doing seaman’s work and incurring a seaman’s hazards".

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

The intra-military immunity doctrine bars certain lawsuits if the alleged injuries arise out of or are experienced the course of an activity with the State

Plaintiff in this CPLR Article 78 challenging his discharge from the New York Guard [NYG]* and New York Division of Military Affairs' [DMNA] alleged failure to respond to his FOIL request. Plaintiff sought, among other things, records related to the charges he had attempted to file. 

Plaintiff had served as a noncommissioned officer with the NYG. During his service, he was counseled over a series of months regarding various disciplinary incidents, most relevant here allegations that Plaintiff had made unauthorized inquiries into the number and identities of NYG service members who had been awarded State Guard Association of the United States [SGAUS] honors.

After Plaintiff attempted to initiate court martial proceedings by purporting to file formal charges with the New York State Division of Military and Naval Affairs [DMNA] against several officers involved in disciplinary incident in which he had been involved, he was honorably discharged from the NYG.

DMNA cross-moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's Article 78 petition on the grounds that Plaintiff's "challenge to his discharge was nonjusticiable and ... that he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to his FOIL claims". Supreme Court granted DNMA's cross-motion and dismissed the proceeding explaining that Plaintiff's challenge to his discharge was barred by the intra-military immunity doctrine and Plaintiff's FOIL challenge was moot. Plaintiff appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.

Addressing the doctrine of intra-military immunity, which applies to both the federal armed forces and a state organized militia, the Appellate Division noted that the doctrine "bars a lawsuit if 'the injuries [for which a plaintiff seeks to recover] arise out of or are in the course of activity incident' involving the plaintiff's military service". However, opined the court, civilian judicial review of internal personnel matters of the military "are subject always to the civilian control" and that of the legislative and the executive branches of State government.

Finding that Plaintiff's challenge was nonjusticiable under the intra-military immunity doctrine, the Appellate Division held Plaintiff's "unsupported assertion that his discharge was retaliatory does not necessitate a contrary conclusion" and, contrary to Plaintiff's contentions, the status of SGAUS as a nonmilitary organization is of no moment inasmuch as Plaintiff's misconduct underlying his honorable discharge stems from his actions related to his service with the NYG.

The Appellate Division then held that Supreme Court properly dismissed Plaintiff FOIL claims as moot, inasmuch as the record reflects that he received responses to his requests.

Addressing Plaintiff's claim that the disclosures were inadequate, the Appellate Division found that Plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by first pursuing an administrative appeal.

* Akin to the New York National Guard, the New York Guard is authorized by Article VIII of New York State's Military Law and maintained at the Governor's discretion (See Military Law §165 [1]). The New York Guard is made up of unpaid volunteers and "augments and supports the New York National Guard," but they "are not federal military reservists as are members of New York State's Army National Guard, the State's Air National Guard" and the State's "Naval Militia".

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

Courts do not choose between differing professional opinions as that is the function of the administrative authority as long as it acts reasonably and responsibly

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 filed by a candidate for appointment as a police officer [Plaintiff] seeking judicial review of the determination of the Suffolk County Department of Civil Service [Department], affirming its earlier determination, that the Plaintiff was not qualified for employment as a police officer, Supreme Court dismiss the Plaintiff's petition. Plaintiff appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court ruling, with costs.

Plaintiff had sought employment as a police officer with the Suffolk County Police Department. Candidates for such employment are required to undergo a background investigation and pass a psychological evaluation, among other things. Petitioner was not recommended for the position and the Civil Service Department notified Plaintiff that he had not been found qualified for the appointment. 

Plaintiff appealed the Department's determination, submitting an independent evaluation by a psychologist who disagreed with the conclusion of the Department's evaluator. Ultimately the Department concluded that there was no significant evidence to support reversing its disqualification of Plaintiff and affirmed its prior determination that the Petitioner was not qualified for employment as a police officer. 

Petitioner commenced the instant CPLR Article 78 proceeding seeing judicial review of the Department's determination. Suffolk County, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) and 7804(f), moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's petition. In an order and judgment, Supreme Court, in effect, granted the County's motion, denied the Plaintiff's petition, and dismissed the proceeding. The Plaintiff appealed the Supreme Court's ruling. 

The Appellate Division found that Supreme Court had properly granted the County's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's petition, explaining that "An appointing authority has wide discretion in determining the fitness of candidates, and this discretion is particularly broad in the hiring of law enforcement officers, to whom high standards may be applied". The court also observed that "So long as the administrative determination is not irrational or arbitrary and capricious, this Court will not disturb it". 

Further, opined the Appellate Division, "If a determination is rational it must be sustained even if the court concludes that another result would also have been rational" and noted that in an Article 78 proceeding, "the reviewing court may not weigh the evidence, choose between conflicting proof, or substitute its assessment of the evidence or witness credibility for that of the administrative factfinder".

Determining that the Supreme Court had properly concluded that the Department's decision disqualifying the Petitioner appoint to the position of police office was neither irrational nor arbitrary and capricious, the Appellate Division stated that "In determining whether a candidate is medically qualified to serve as a police officer, the appointing agency is 'entitled to rely upon the findings of its own medical personnel, even if those findings are contrary to those of professionals retained by the candidate'".

In the words of the Appellate Division, "It is not for the courts to choose between the diverse professional opinions. That is the function of the proper department heads and as long as they act reasonably and responsibly, the courts will not interfere".

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

A writ of prohibition is available to challenge an official or an agency proceeding, or when it is about to proceed, beyond its alleged lawful jurisdiction

An employee [Employee] filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights [DHR] alleging that a member [Respondent] of the New York State Assembly discriminated against her on the basis of gender and sexually harassed her during her employment. 

DHR found probable cause to proceed to investigate Employee's complaint and then amended the Employee's discrimination complaint by adding the New York State Assembly [NYSA] as a Respondent in the DHR in its investigation of the complaint submitted by Employee.

NYSA, contending that DHR did not give NYSA "constitutional due process notice of the charges against it because there are no specific allegations of wrongdoing on its part", initiated the instant CPLR Article 78 proceeding seeking a Writ of Prohibition* barring DHR from proceeding with the Employee's discrimination claim to the extent it named the NYSA in the DHR proceeding as a Respondent. Supreme Court denied NYSA's application for the Writ of Prohibition and NYSA appealed. 

Citing Matter of Town of Huntington v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 82 NY2d 783, and other New York State court decisions, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's ruling, explaining that "The extraordinary writ of prohibition is available to address 'whether [a] body or officer proceeded, is proceeding or is about to proceed without or in excess of jurisdiction' ".

The Appellate Division also opined that "Prohibition will not lie where the party has access to another adequate legal remedy" and that "[E]rrors of law, which of course may be verbalized, but incorrectly, as excesses of jurisdiction or power, are not to be confused with a proper basis for using the extraordinary writ", quoting the Court of Appeals' decision in Matter of State of New York v King, 36 NY2d 59.

Addressing NYSA's argument that DHR acted in excess of its jurisdiction and thus NYSA was not required to exhaust its administrative remedies, the Appellate Division said it rejected that contention because the "[remedy] for asserted error of law in the exercise of [DHR's] jurisdiction or authority lies first in administrative review and following exhaustion of that remedy in subsequent judicial review pursuant to section 298 of the Executive Law", concluded that NYSA "will suffer no irreparable harm . . . by waiting to challenge [DHR's] findings, if necessary, on the merits after [DHR] investigates [the Employee's] complaint".

* A writ of prohibition is one of number of the ancient “common law” writs and is typically issued by a higher tribunal to a lower tribunal to "prohibit" the adjudication of a matter then pending before the lower tribunal on the ground that the lower tribunal "lacked jurisdiction."  Other ancients writs include a writ of mandamus, granted by a court to compel an official to perform "acts that officials are duty-bound to perform;" the writ of injunction, a judicial order preventing a public official from performing an act; the writ of "certiorari," compelling a lower court to send its record of a case to the higher tribunal for review by the higher tribunal; and the writ of “quo warranto” [by what authority do you act]. New York State's Civil Practice Law and Rules [C{LR] set out the modern equivalents of such surviving ancient writs.

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

Employee served with disciplinary charges after failing to comply with supervisor's directives

New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings [OATH] Administrative Law Judge [ALJ] Kevin F. Casey recommended a 24-day suspension without pay after finding that a housekeeping aide employed by the NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation disobeyed orders to remove his gloves on two occasions and failed to wear his uniform shirt on four occasions

Click HERE to access Judge Casey's decision posted on the Internet.

New York State's Workers’ Comp 202 – Best Practices to Access Benefits for Workers

The New York State Office of the Advocate for Injured Workers continues its webinar series for workers and their advocates, and there is still time to register!

Workers’ Comp 202 is a deeper dive into best practices workers can use to access their workers’ compensation benefits. This presentation will cover:

• understanding labor market attachment,
• details on benefit periods and how benefit rates are calculated,
• the importance of items such as the degree of disability and the Carrier Continue Payments (CCP) order,
• how advocates can help workers and comply with privacy provisions,
• The Board’s New York Medical Treatment Guidelines, and more!

The sessions are free and there will be time for questions.

Register here

Wednesday, April 29, 2026

12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.

Wednesday, May 27, 2026

12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.

Wednesday, June 24, 2026

12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.

For more information visit the Advocate for Injured Workers section of the New York State Workers Compensation Board’s website for additional resources or call the Advocate for Injured Workers at (877) 632-4996 or email advinjwkr@wcb.ny.gov.

Having difficulties registering? 

If you are having trouble registering for or attending any of these webinars, check out these Webinar FAQs.

 

Selected Webinars scheduled for the week ending May 1, 2026

MONDAY, APRIL 27 | 10:00 AM PT, 1:00 PM ET - High-Impact AI: Powering Public Innovation with Advanced Workstations Learn how edge AI and high-performance workstations help public agencies process data faster, reduce latency and drive innovation. REGISTER

TUESDAY, APRIL 28 | 11:00 AM PT, 2:00 PM ET - Modernizing Critical Physical Infrastructure for Today's Public-Sector Demands Learn how to identify risks in aging power, rack and cooling systems and modernize physical infrastructure to improve resiliency, support cybersecurity and enable reliable service delivery. REGISTER

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29 | 11:00 AM PT, 2:00 PM ET - AI Readiness for Public Capital Programs Join this webinar to learn how to evaluate AI, ask the right vendor questions, and protect funding, data, and accountability from the start. REGISTER

THURSDAY, APRIL 30 | 10:00 AM PT, 1:00 PM ET Protecting Public Innovation: Security for Advanced Computing Workflows Explore strategies to secure high-performance computing environments while enabling innovative solutions. REGISTER

Selected items from Blogs posted during the week ending April 24, 2026

Webinar: AI Relief, Not Revolution Explore why AI adoption stalls and how to create a more coordinated approach. Save Your Seat

City & State published an op-ed by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli Items addressed: layoffs, entry level jobs and long-term business growth. Download

The 2026 Cyber Threat Trends Report Cyber incidents aren't slowing down; they're getting faster, more coordinated, and harder to detect. Drawing on over 500,000 hours of real-world investigations, this report breaks down how attackers are getting in, what they target first, and why recovery is becoming the real battleground. DOWNLOAD

Planning What’s Next for PeopleSoft Explore how organizations are evolving PeopleSoft to meet growing security and compliance demands in Atlanta on April 29. Join the Conversation 

Your voice shapes the future of public finance Take a few minutes to help us capture what government finance teams are really facing in 2026. Share Your Perspective 

What are finance teams across government dealing with? Weigh in on the challenges and priorities defining public sector finance this year. Take the Survey 

Modernizing Outdated Identity Tools in the Public Sector Many public sector organizations are trying to secure complex, modern IT environments with identity systems that were designed decades ago. This guide outlines a practical path to modern identity architecture. DOWNLOAD

The 2026 Cyber Threat Trends Report Cyber incidents aren't slowing down; they're getting faster, more coordinated, and harder to detect. Drawing on over 500,000 hours of real-world investigations, this report breaks down how attackers are getting in, what they target first, and why recovery is becoming the real battleground. DOWNLOAD

Integrating AI, Security and Advanced Network Tech in Government This guide explores how next-generation networking, AI-powered operations and modern security frameworks work together to create a more resilient, scalable foundation for government. DOWNLOAD

Benchmarking AI and Digital Performance Across Government Explore the data, benchmarks, and trends shaping modern public service delivery and what they mean for your agency. Download the Report.

AI-Powered Agencies are delivering 2.5x Higher Engagement Gain insights for improving service delivery and trust with digital benchmarks from thousands of governments. Get the Benchmarks.

Safer, Smarter AI Adoption Starts Here Help your team build shared AI fluency without adding complexity or risk. Get Details

AI in Government: What's Delivering Value; How Agencies Can Get Started Watch this webinar to hear real-world examples of how public-sector teams are applying agentic AI to streamline workflows, establish clear governance, and scale with accountability. WATCH NOW

Collaboration Tools that Protect the Public Conversation Explore how secure, integrated collaboration tools help communities respond faster to public safety incidents.  WATCH 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

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

Moving Beyond Training: Needed, a Unified Approach Cyber Risk Explore how a unified cybersecurity approach helps agencies understand where risk is building and respond sooner. WATCH NOW