Selected posts from blogs during the week ending March 13, 2026

Building Government Visibility and Resilience with Autonomous Tech Explore how autonomous technologies strengthen operations, resilience and situational awareness across government. READ NOW

A Roadmap for Upgrading Resident Login and Access Modernizing how residents log in to government services doesn’t require a massive IT overhaul. This guide explains how state, provincial, and local agencies can introduce Customer Identity and Access Management (CIAM)—the systems that manage citizen registration, login, and multi-factor authentication—using a phased approach that works with existing platforms. DOWNLOAD

Real change Real leaders No script Inside City Hall is a new series from Via featuring candid discussions with the municipal leaders behind high performing transit. Watch now

Rebuilding from Disaster: How Los Angeles County Assessed Damage from the 2025 Wildfires Hear how Los Angeles County leveraged a unified, modern IT system to quickly and accurately assess damage to thousands of properties. 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

Make the Most of Your Cybersecurity Funding: Turning Grants into Measurable Risk Reduction Learn how to find and maximize cybersecurity grants to fund your tech stack. WATCH NOW

Exposing Software Supply Chain Blind Spots in Government Learn how to make invisible risks to the software supply chain visible, and what government leaders can do about them. WATCH NOW

Secure Collaboration for Modern Government: Enabling Productivity and Compliance Learn how organizations are leveraging certified, secure video and communication solutions to support productivity & public engagement. WATCH NOW

Moving Beyond Training: Why Governments Need a Unified Approach to Human Cyber Risk This webinar explores how a unified approach—connecting training, behavior data, and real-time signals—helps agencies understand where risk is building and respond sooner. WATCH NOW

A CPLR Article 78 must be commenced within four months after the determination to be reviewed becomes final and binding upon the petitioner

An employee [Petitioner] of the New York City Department of Correction [DOC] was served with disciplinary charges, which disciplinary charges were sustained by a DOC human resources representative. Subsequently Petitioner executed a waiver of his right to a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law §75.

Petitioner then commenced the instant to CPLR Article 78 proceeding seeking a court order compelling DOC to submit his disciplinary case to the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings [OATH] for adjudication pursuant to Civil Service Law §75. 

Supreme Court granted Petitioner's motions and denied DOC's cross-motion to dismiss Petitioner's Article 78 action. DOC appealed the Supreme Court's determinations. 

The Appellate Division reversed Supreme Court's order and judgment, on the law, with costs, granted DOC's petition and dismissed Petitioner's Article 78 proceeding.

Citing Matter of Kaneev v City of New York Envtl. Control Bd., 149 AD3d 742, the Appellate Division explained that a proceeding initiated pursuant to CPLR Article 78 must be commenced within four months after the determination to be reviewed becomes final and binding upon the petitioner. 

In the instant matter the Appellate Division noted that Petitioner executed the waiver on February 11, 2021, and DOC's labor relations representative upheld the disciplinary charges against the Petitioner on August 4, 2021. Since Petitioner did not commence the instant proceeding until September 1, 2022, the Appellate Division held that Petitioner's Article 78 proceeding was time-barre, citing CPLR 217(1).

In the words of the Appellate Division, Supreme Court "should have granted DOC's cross-motion to dismiss Petitioner's Article 78 action on the ground that the proceeding was time-barred" and that "The parties' remaining contentions need not be reached in light of the foregoing". 

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

Employee's making misleading entries into agency records and other acts of insubordination results in disciplinary action

New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings' Administrative Law Judge [ALJ] Astrid B. Gloade recommended a 22-day suspension without pay as the penalty to be imposed on an agency employee [Respondent] charged with, and found guilty of, insubordination and making a false, deceptive, and misleading entry into an agency record. 

After being directed not to do so, Respondent worked on and sent emails concerning matters not assigned to her and copied the agency's Commissioner and the agency's Deputy Commissioner on routine work emails. Respondent also submitted a request to the agency's Office of Information Technology [OIT] service desk for assistance on behalf of the Commissioner without the Commissioner's knowledge or approval in an effort to restore Respondent's access to an agency database. 

The ALJ found that Respondent willfully disobeyed Respondent's supervisor’s clear and unambiguous instructions that Respondent:

[1] not send emails regarding issues not assigned to her, and, in addition, 

[2] not to send emails addressed to individuals outside Respondent's chain of command. 

Judge Gloade also found that Respondent made a false entry in agency records when she submitted an OIT ticket "on the Commissioner’s behalf" without authorization and misrepresented that she sent the request on the Commissioner’s behalf. 

The ALJ recommended Respondent be suspended for 22 days without pay, noting the recommended penalty was coupled with a 15-day prehearing suspension that Respondent had already served. 

Click HERE to access Judge Gloade's findings and recommended penalty posted on the Internet.

Petitioner denial of a reasonable accommodation dismissed for failure to state a cause of action

Supreme Court had granted the City of New York's motion to dismiss Plaintiff complaint on the grounds that it was untimely. However, the Appellate Division subsequently opined that "The complaint should not have been dismissed as untimely. Plaintiff chose to assert claims under the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws rather than seeking administrative review of the denial of his reasonable accommodation request, as was his right".

The Appellate Division concluded that the complaint was timely filed because Plaintiff's claims are governed by a three-year statute of limitations rather than the statutes of limitations controlling the initiating of litigation under color of the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws.

Nonetheless, the Appellate Division decided that Supreme Court properly dismissed the action "because even under a lenient notice pleading standard, it fails to state a cause of action for discrimination for failure to provide an accommodation under the State or City Human Rights Laws".  

The Appellate Division's ruling explained that "Plaintiff's bare allegation that taking the vaccine conflicted with the Ten Commandment's broad admonition 'thou shalt not kill' was insufficient to show that he adhered to a bona fide religious practice or doctrine that [Defendants] failed to accommodate", citing a number of decisions by New York State courts including Matter of Marsteller v City of New York, 217 AD3d 543 [appeal dismissed and leave to appeal denied 41 NY3d 960].

The Appellate Division also rejected Plaintiff's claim that the Defendant "failed to engage in a cooperative dialogue" as unavailing, again citing Matter of Marsteller v City of New York, 217 AD3d 543 [appeal dismissed and leave to appeal denied 41 NY3d 960].

With respect to Plaintiff's cause of action seeking a declaratory judgment ordering the New York City Police Department to consider and grant his application for reinstatement, the Appellate Division noted that such a request is "essentially an Article 78 claim for mandamus". In the words of the Appellate Division, "Plaintiff failed to show that defendants have a nondiscretionary duty to grant the relief requested, or that he has a clear legal right to reinstatement" and the decision not to reinstate Plaintiff is not subject to mandamus because it involves the exercise of discretion.

The Appellate Division then "unanimously affirmed" the City's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint, without costs

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

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli released the municipal and school audits listed below on March 8, 2026

New York State Comptroller DiNapoli posted the municipal and school audits listed below on the Internet on March 8, 2026.

Click on the text highlighted  in color to access the complete text of the audits.

Lawrence Union Free School District – Financial Management (Nassau County)

The board and district officials did not properly manage fund balance. For the 2021-22 through 2023-24 fiscal years, the district’s reported surplus fund balance ranged from approximately 7 to 15% of the upcoming year’s budget, which was $3.5 million to $11.1 million over the 4% statutory limit. The district did not exceed the statutory limit for the 2024-25 fiscal year primarily due to an unbudgeted $15 million transfer to the capital projects fund. Additionally, for the 2021-22 through 2023-24 fiscal years, the board adopted budgets that annually overestimated appropriations by an average of $9.4 million per year, or a cumulative total of approximately $28.2 million after adjusting for unplanned transfers. The majority of the overestimated appropriations were for instruction, health insurance benefits and special education services totaling $17 million.

Syracuse City School District – Information Technology (IT) (Onondaga County)

District officials did not adequately manage nonstudent network user accounts. As of Nov. 15, 2024, 488 of the district’s 6,386 enabled nonstudent network user accounts were not needed and should have been disabled. Auditors determined that 433 of the unneeded accounts had never been logged into or had not been logged into for over six months, including some that have not been logged into for at least five years. These accounts are additional entry points into the district’s network and, if accessed by an attacker, could be used to inappropriately access the network to view personal, private and sensitive student and staff information, make unauthorized changes to district records or deny legitimate access to the network and records. Compromised network user accounts with administrative permissions could cause greater damage because they have full control over the network. During the audit, IT department officials initiated corrective action to disable unnecessary accounts.

Town of Horseheads – Information Technology (Chemung County)

Town officials did not adequately manage network and local user accounts, develop and adopt a written IT contingency plan, or provide IT security awareness training to staff. Although the town board paid $14,790 to a vendor for IT-related services, officials did not enter into a written contract or service level agreement to define the scope of services. As a result, the board cannot be assured that the town’s IT systems are secured from unauthorized use and access or that critical data would be preserved and operations restored in the event of an interruption.

Great River Fire District – Treasurer Reports (Suffolk County)

Auditors determined that the treasurer did not always provide the board with complete and accurate financial reports. As a result, the board did not have adequate information to properly monitor the district’s financial operations. The treasurer manually prepared financial reports that contained errors. The treasurer’s calculated book balances for the general fund checking account varied from the accounting records by $12 to $4,701 without documentation supporting the calculations. In addition, the listings of claims included in the treasurer’s reports were inaccurate or incomplete for 28 of 279 claims totaling $4,464 of $340,597 reviewed.