|
Summaries of, and commentaries on, selected court and administrative decisions and related matters affecting public employers and employees in New York State in particular and possibly in other jurisdictions in general.
|
Decision No. 18,844 - Application of Petitioner seeking the removal of the School District's "District Registrar, Attendance Officer and Director of Food and Nutrition Services". Click HERE to access the Commissioner's decision posted on the Internet.
Decision No. 18,845 - Application of Petitioner seeking the removal of a Member of the School District's Board of Education. Click HERE to access the Commissioner's decision posted on the Internet.
Decision No. 18,846 - Petitioner sought the removal of a Trustee from the School District's Board of Education. The Petitioner's application was denied as untimely. An appeal to the Commissioner must be commenced within 30 days from the decision or act complained of, unless any delay is excused by the Commissioner for good cause shown (8 NYCRR 275.16). Click HERE to access the Commissioner's decision.
Decision No. 18,848 - Appeal of Petitioner from certain actions taken by the School District's Board of Education. Click HERE to access the Commissioner's decision posted on the Internet.
Decision No. 18,850 - Consolidated Applications submitted by two Petitioners. One Petitioner sought the removal of the Superintendent of the School District and the second Petitioner sought the removal of the School Board's President and Trustee of the School District's Board of Education. Click HERE to access the decisions of the Commissioner posted on the Internet.
Decision No. 18,851 - Appeal of Petitioners on behalf of their children from a decision of the Board of Education concerning the School District's boundary. Click HERE to access the Commissioner's decision posted on the Internet.
On October 2, 2026 New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced that the State Government Accountability, Local government and School audits audits listed below were posted on the Internet
Click on the text highlighted in COLOR to access the audit.
New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services – Actions to Reduce Carbon Emissions From City Government Operations (2023-N-7)
In 2019, the New York City Council passed the Climate Mobilization Act, including Local Law 97, which requires New York City government operations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% by fiscal year 2025 and 50% by fiscal year 2030, relative to such emissions for fiscal year 2006. Auditors found that the city did not achieve the emissions reductions or energy efficiency improvements for 2025. While the city acknowledged that it was behind schedule due to “unforeseen and unprecedented challenges over the past years,” other factors such as missing documentation, missed reporting deadlines, inconsistent metrics and unclear guidance and communication from the Department of Citywide Administrative Services to agencies it was to collaborate with on emissions reductions also contributed to delays with achieving Climate Mobilization Act goals.
Department of Health – Medicaid Program: Oversight of Electronic Transmitter Identification Numbers (2024-S-34)
An electronic transmitter identification number (ETIN) is a unique identifier used to submit fee-for-service claims to Medicaid. Per Medicaid policy, all entities that submit claims to Medicaid must have an active, certified ETIN affiliation on file before submitting claims. Auditors found that DOH has not implemented adequate controls to ensure that ETIN affiliations meet requirements. As a result, the Department of Health’s Medicaid claim processing and payment system processed nearly 10.8 million claims submitted with 783 ETINs that were not affiliated with the billing providers on the date of service. The control deficiencies identified reduce visibility into the claim submission process, creating uncertainty about whether claim submitters who may have been previously authorized are still authorized to submit claims.
Metropolitan Transportation Authority – Selected Aspects of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority Small Business Development Program (2023-S-47)
In 2010, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) launched its Small Business Development Program (SBDP) to help eligible small business construction firms develop and grow by establishing business relationships with the MTA. SBDP includes the state-funded Small Business Mentoring Program (Mentoring Program) and the federally funded Small Business Federal Program. Auditors found an overall lack of formal written procedures for many aspects of SBDP, including the application and procurement processes, the identification of bidders and the Mentoring Program’s training and outreach. Auditors found errors or inconsistencies in the documents SBDP uses to select which contractors would be provided with an opportunity to bid on individual contracts. As a result, auditors found eligible contractors that should have been selected to bid but were not.
Division of Criminal Justice Services – Oversight of Adult Probation Services (2023-S-46)
The Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) oversees and funds 58 probation departments across the state, covering 57 counties and New York City. It is responsible for promoting practices that improve public safety, hold probationers accountable, and reduce recidivism. Auditors found that DCJS should increase its monitoring and oversight to enhance the probation supervision practices provided by counties and maximize public safety for all state residents and provide guidance that establishes a balance between the counties expressed desire for standards and the need for flexibility from county to county. While DCJS has developed and implemented protocols to assist counties with their supervision responsibilities, auditors found that counties could use additional guidance and support in areas such as training, caseload and review practices, drug and alcohol testing, completing required periodic probationer assessment reports, sex offender supervision and the management of ignition interlock devices.
Department of Labor – Labor Investigations in New York City (Follow-Up) (2025-F-32)
The Department of Labor (DOL) is responsible for enforcing New York Labor Laws (Laws),which provide requirements related to minimum wage, overtime, hours of work, child labor and payment of wages and wage supplements—and DOL’s Division of Labor Standards (Division) is responsible for receiving and investigating labor complaints, and can assess penalties and fines if employers are found to be in violation of the Laws. A prior audit, issued in January 2024, identified weaknesses in several aspects of DOL’s oversight, including significant delays in the Division’s investigation activities that, in turn, diminished the efficiency of case resolution and restitution for workers. DOL made some progress in addressing the problems identified in the initial audit report. Of the initial report’s seven audit recommendations, two were implemented and five were partially implemented.
City of Albany – Budget Review (Albany County) OSC reviewed the city’s adopted fiscal year 2025 and 2026 budgets and determined that significant revenue and expenditure projections were not reasonable. City officials did not prepare budgets using realistic estimates based on historical trends, actual results and the most current and accurate information available. In addition, city officials relied on non-recurring revenues to finance recurring expenditures. The city experienced an unplanned operating deficit of approximately $25 million in fiscal year 2025, which significantly reduced available financial resources and limited the city’s ability to finance amounts included in the 2026 adopted budget. The 2026 adopted budget includes revenues that the city may not realize and appropriations that are underestimated. If current operating trends continue, auditors project the city will have a fiscal year-end deficit of approximately $26 million.
City of Oneonta – Cybersecurity (Otsego County) City officials did not provide adequate governance to safeguard Information Technology (IT) assets from cybersecurity threats. While the city’s third-party IT vendor created several cybersecurity policies, standards and guidelines, the city’s common council did not formally adopt the policies and city officials did not review, enforce or monitor employee compliance with the policies. In addition, officials did not communicate the policies to city employees in a timely manner, and they did not clearly document cybersecurity roles and responsibilities in city employees’ job descriptions. As a result, policy violations occurred, including officials not documenting risk assessment activities and employees not completing cybersecurity awareness training within 30 days of hire.
Lockwood Volunteer Fire Department – Financial Activities (Tioga County) Department officials did not ensure that financial activities were properly supported, authorized, recorded and reported or provide the department board of directors with complete, accurate and timely information needed to effectively oversee the Department’s financial operations.
Town of Wallkill – Budget Review (Orange County) The town’s adopted budget for fiscal year 2026 risks negatively impacting the town’s financial condition and putting the town in a declining financial position. Because the town did not have complete, accurate and current accounting and financial records, auditors’ ability to determine the reasonableness of the town’s significant revenue and expenditure projections was limited. The budget included appropriated fund balance as well as significant revenue and expenditure projections that were not always reasonable or supported. While the one-time state aid of $4 million will ease concerns for the 2026 fiscal year, the combination of these factors puts the town at risk of having a declining financial condition.
Town of Washington – Financial Operations (Dutchess County) The board and officials did not effectively manage the town’s fund balances. As a result, officials maintained unrestricted fund balance in the main operating funds that exceeded the town’s 25% fund balance policy limit and adopted unrealistic budgets that generated operating surpluses and accumulated excess fund balances. Inadequate budgeting practices, including appropriating fund balance that was not needed to fund operations, may have resulted in taxpayers paying more in real property taxes than necessary. In addition, while officials stated that excess fund balance was set aside for future capital plans and maintenance, they did not develop a multiyear financial plan or a capital plan to identify, prioritize and fund those needs and guide budget development and decisions.
Village of Elmsford – Employee Benefits (Westchester County) Village officials did not ensure employees’ leave accruals and payments of unused leave accruals were accurate, approved and supported. Failing to ensure that employees’ leave accruals and payments are accurate resulted in employees being compensated for or taking leave to which they were not entitled and creates the potential for future errors. As a result, the village incurred unnecessary salary-related expenditures.
Village of Fonda – Water Fund Financial Operations (Montgomery County) The board did not effectively manage the water fund’s financial operations, causing the fund balance to decline and reducing the board’s ability to respond to emergencies, infrastructure and service needs or other unanticipated occurrences. In addition, the board did not provide oversight of the clerk-treasurer’s water duties.
Village of Lansing – Procurement (Tompkins County) The board and village officials did not always use a competitive process to procure goods and services according to the statutory requirements in state law, the village’s procurement policy or best practices. As a result, village officials did not have assurance that purchases were made in a manner that guards against favoritism, improvidence, extravagance, fraud and corruption, while fostering honest competition for the village to obtain the best goods and services at the lowest possible price.
###
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
A Reasonable Disciplinary Penalty Under the Circumstances - The text of this publication focuses on determining an appropriate disciplinary penalty to be imposed on an employee in the public service in instances where the employee has been found guilty of misconduct or incompetence. For more information click HERE.
Disability Benefits for fire, police and other public sector personnel - An e-book focusing on retirement for disability under the NYS Employees' Retirement System, the NYS Teachers' Retirement System, General Municipal Law Sections 207-a or 207-c and similar statutes providing benefits to employees injured both "on-the-job" and "off-the-job." For more information about this e-book click HERE.
The Layoff, Preferred List and Reinstatement Manual - This e-book reviews the relevant laws, rules and regulations, and selected court and administrative decisions. Click HERE for more information.
5 Public Safety Trends for 2026 From AI-powered situational awareness to integrated real-time crime centers, this paper reveals how agencies can modernize systems to keep pace with escalating risks. DOWNLOAD
Plaintiff appealed a Federal District Court’s dismissal of his complaint against International Brotherhood of Teamsters and Teamsters Local Union No. 210 [collectively herein "Union"] and United Airlines, Inc. [United] for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Plaintiff had secured the Union’s representation to challenge his termination from his job as an airline technician for United Airlines but after advocating for his claim through the initial steps of the contract grievance procedure, Union concluded that Plaintiff's grievance was not meritorious and declined to pursue it further.
In his appeal before the U. S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit [Second Circuit], Plaintiff argued that the District Court erred in determining that he did not separately have the individual right to pursue that grievance in arbitration pursuant to the Railway Labor Act [RLA], 45 U.S.C. §151 et seq., after the Union declined to go beyond the initial steps it had taken on behalf of Plaintiff after deciding Plaintiff's grievance lacked merit.
Plaintiff had been employed by United for almost 25 years prior to his being fired for timekeeping violations on June 11, 2024. During his employment, Plaintiff was a member of IBT’s affiliated local union, Local 210. The IBT and Local 210 constitutions contain substantially similar language regarding the relationship between a Union member and the Union for purposes of employment grievances whereby the Union and its officers, business representatives, and agents may decline to process any grievance, complaint, difficulty, or dispute if in their reasonable judgment such grievance, complaint, or dispute lacks merit.
Under the terms of the relevant CBA, “[i]f the decision of the Company’s representative is not acceptable to the Union, the decision may be appealed by the Union to the System Board of Adjustment,” which is composed of two members designated by United and two members designated by the Union. After Plaintiff’s termination, the Union filed a grievance with United on his behalf pursuant to the relevant CBA’s grievance procedures. The grievance form, signed by Plaintiff states, “I hereby authorize the Union to settle my grievance as they deem proper, and I agree to accept and be bound by the settlement agreed to by the Union or its designees.”
The Union subsequently notified Plaintiff that after a “full legal review” of Plaintiff’s grievance, and “based on [the Union’s] attorney’s legal opinion that any grievance on behalf of [Plaintiff] will be denied and unlikely to be sustained in a board of arbitration,” the Union “declined to pursue this grievance.”
Plaintiff next filed the instant lawsuit, seeking;
(1) A declaratory judgment that, as an airline employee, he has the right to arbitrate his grievance as an individual, with or without the Union’s participation; and
2) An order compelling such arbitration before a single arbitrator.
In granting Unions’ motions to dismiss the District Court concluded that the RLA does not provide an individual right for airline employees to arbitrate a grievance and dismissed Plaintiff's complaint.
Union had contended that the RLA provides no such right and, even if it did, Plaintiff waived it by entrusting the Union to settle his grievance in this case. The Second Circuit said it agreed with the Union, also concluding that Plaintiff waived any such right to individually pursue his grievance in this case by ceding it to the Union.
In the words of the Second Circuit: "we conclude that [Plaintiff ceded his grievance authority to the Union through his membership in the Union and by signing the grievance form, thus waiving any right to pursue arbitration as an individual under the RLA (assuming, without deciding, that such a right exists)," noting that "the IBT and Local 210 constitutions plainly provide that the Union has the authority to decline to process member grievances it finds to be without merit".
The Second Circuit's decision observed that the "CBA interlocks with this provision, providing an appeal to the SBA through the Union and states that, if the SBA deadlocks, 'the Union may appeal the case to arbitration.'”
Further and "most concretely", the Second Circuit's decision pointed out that the Plaintiff "had signed grievance form, specific to his termination grievance, clearly accepts the Union’s authority here, vesting the Union with full authority to act on his behalf".
In particular, the Second Circuit noted that Plaintiff had agreed to “accept and be bound by” the Union’s exercise of its discretion in handling his grievance", and the Second Circuit said "we will enforce that agreement here".
ln the words of the Court, Plaintiff "waived that right in connection with his termination by ceding it to the Union and, thus, his complaint failed to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) ", affirming the judgment of the Federal District Court.
Click HERE to access the Second Circuit's decision posted on the Internet.