New York State local government and school audits issued

On November 5, 2016, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following local government and school audits were issued.

                                      Click the text highlighted in color to access the audit.

Academy of Health Sciences Charter School – Information Technology Asset Management (Monroe County) School officials did not appropriately inventory, track and safeguard IT assets. Because the board of trustees did not adopt an IT inventory policy, school officials lacked detailed guidance for maintaining the IT inventory listing. As a result, the chief administrative officer and operations coordinator did not maintain a complete, accurate and up-to-date inventory listing to properly account for IT assets.

Campbell Fire Department – Treasurer (Steuben County) The treasurers did not properly collect, deposit, record, disburse and report department funds. As a result, the board of directors and membership lacked reliable information to manage the department’s financial activities, and the board could not determine whether all revenues were properly accounted for and deposited, and whether all disbursements were appropriate.

New Woodstock Fire District – Transparency of Fiscal Activities (Madison County) The board did not conduct an annual audit of the treasurer’s financial records and reports for fiscal year 2025. Senior officials were not aware the board should conduct an annual audit, and were therefore unable to state when, if ever, the board last audited the treasurer’s financial records and reports. However, senior officials said they attended the required fire district commissioner training, which should include content about annual audits. In addition, the treasurer did not prepare and file the 2025 Annual Financial Report (AFR) with the State Comptroller’s office within 60 days after the fiscal year end as required by state law. Prior to this audit, the district’s last filed AFR was for the 2019 fiscal year.

Town of Hermon – Town Clerk/Tax Collector (St. Lawrence County) For the collections auditors examined, the clerk generally remitted tax collections and clerk fees to the appropriate parties in a timely manner and properly reported clerk fee collections. However, the clerk did not properly record and deposit all collections.

Village of Brightwaters – Treasurer’s Duties and Claims Audit (Suffolk County) The board did not monitor the treasurer’s financial duties or audit claims before payment. As a result, the village has an increased risk that errors, unauthorized or inappropriate transactions, and the misappropriation of village funds could occur and remain undetected. In addition, the village has an increased risk that goods and services may not be obtained at the lowest possible cost.

Wheelerville Union Free School District – Audit Follow-Up Review (Fulton County) The purpose of the review was to assess the district’s progress in implementing recommendations in Wheelerville Union Free School District – Unused IT Asset Inventory, released in May 2022. Of the audit’s six recommendations, district officials fully implemented one recommendation and partially implemented five recommendations. District officials fully implemented a recommendation regarding physically safeguarding unused IT assets. However, district officials did not fully implement the recommendations regarding improving policies and procedures, maintaining complete inventory records, conducting periodic physical inventories and ensuring proper disposal practices.

###

A court may set aside an administrative disciplinary penalty only if it is so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness

A tenured teacher [Plaintiff] employed by a Central School District [District] was charged with, inter alia, misconduct, conduct unbecoming a teacher, neglect of duty, and insubordination arising from, among other things, repeated incidents of alleged noncompliance with the District's mask requirements during the COVID-19 pandemic and certain conduct toward school administrators and a colleague.

The District served Plaintiff with a notice of the disciplinary charges and Education Law §3020-a disciplinary hearing was conducted. The hearing officer sustained most of the Charges and Specifications alleged by the District and imposed termination of Plaintiff's employment as the the penalty.

Plaintiff initiated a CPLR Article 75 appeal challenging the hearing officer's findings and the penalty imposed. The District responded with a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's CPLR Article 75 petition. Supreme Court granted the District's motion to dismiss the CPLR Article 75 action,  denied Plaintiff's petition, and dismissed the CPLR Article 75 proceeding.

The Plaintiff appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.  The Appellate Division sustained the Supreme Court decision, holding that the lower court had properly granted the District's  motion to dismiss the petition, had properly denied the Plaintiff's petition, and had properly dismissed the proceeding.

The Appellate Division, citing a number of relevant cases, explained:

1. "Where, as here, the obligation to arbitrate arises through a statutory mandate", in this instance by Education Law §3020-a, "the determination of the arbitrator is subject to 'closer judicial scrutiny' under CPLR 7511(b) than it would otherwise receive";

2. An award in a compulsory arbitration proceeding, such as is here the case, must have evidentiary support and cannot be arbitrary or capricious; and

3. "When reviewing compulsory arbitrations in education proceedings such as [the instant proceeding], the court should accept the arbitrators' credibility determinations, even where there is conflicting evidence and room for choice exists".

Finding that the determination sustaining the charges of misconduct, conduct unbecoming a teacher, neglect of duty, and insubordination was rational, had evidentiary support, and was neither arbitrary or capricious, the Appellate Division held that,  notwithstanding Plaintiff's arguments to the contrary, "the proceedings comported with due process" as Plaintiff was given "adequate notice of the charge and the notice was reasonably specific, in light of all the relevant circumstances, to allow for the preparation of an adequate defense".

Further, the Appellate Division's decision noted that "A court may set aside an administrative penalty only if it is so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness". Although "reasonable minds might disagree over what the proper penalty should have been", this "does not provide a basis for ... refashioning the penalty".

The Appellate Division concluded that the penalty of termination of employment "was not so disproportionate to the sustained charges so as to shock one's sense of fairness, particularly in light of the repeated nature of the offending behavior, that it occurred in the presence of students, and the [Petitioner's] prior disciplinary record" and ruled that the Supreme Court had properly granted the District's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's petition and dismiss the Plaintiff's CPLR Article 75 proceeding.

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals' summary of its decision in the Appeal of Barberan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Town of Eastchester, et al., Defendants-Appellees, is set out below

"Former employee sued the Town of Eastchester to recover for harm he allegedly suffered while employed with the Town of Eastchester Police Department (“Department”), including his ultimate termination. 

"In the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), Barberan asserted claims for discrimination based on his Hispanic national origin and for retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”), and the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”). 

"The district court concluded that Barberan failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation, failed to show that the Town’s reasons for the adverse employment actions were pretextual and that the real reason was discrimination, and granted summary judgment for the Town. See Barberan v. Town of Eastchester, No. 19-cv-10983-VR, 2025 WL 962815, at *16, *18 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2025). 

"On appeal, Barberan challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Town only with respect to his Section 1983 and NYSHRL discrimination claims. 

"And as to those discrimination claims, his challenge is limited to his termination (the other claimed adverse actions were abandoned). 

"For the reasons stated below, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED."

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

Selected administrative decisions posted on the Internet by New York State's Commissioner of Education

Decision No. 18,868 Appeal of certain action by the Board of Education of a School District concerning "shared decision-making". Click HERE to access the Commissioner's decision posted on the Internet.

Decision No. 18,869 Appeal of a parent, on behalf of her child, involving action by the Board of Education of a Union Free School District involving the Dignity for All Students Act. Click HERE to access the Commissioner's decision posted on the Internet.

Decision No. 18,870 Appeal of parents, on behalf of their child, with respect to the  action by a Board of Education of a Central School District concerning a school closure. Click HERE to access the Commissioner's decision posted on the Internet.

Decision No. 18,872 Appeal of a parent, on behalf of her child, concerning a Montessori School an immunization issue. Click HERE to access the Commissioner's decision posted on the Internet.

Decision No. 18,873 Appeal of a parent, on behalf of her child, addressing actions of the Board of Education of a Central School District concerning student discipline. Click HERE to access the Commissioner's decision posted on the Internet.

New York State's Workers' Compensation Board offers NYS Workers' Compensation 101 with the Advocate for Injured Workers on November 3, 2026

On November 3, 2026, the New York State's Workers' Compensation Board’s Advocate for Injured Workers will present a program focusing on the basics of the New York State Workers’ Compensation System, including employees’ rights if they become injured or ill on the job. This presentation will also cover:

• Employees’ benefits under workers’ compensation
• How to file a claim
• How to get help with your claim if needed
• Tips and best practices for injured workers

The session is free and there will be time at the end for questions.

Important: When you register, you will automatically receive a confirmation email that includes a calendar invite. Be sure to add the invite to your calendar so you have a reminder! If you don’t receive the confirmation email in your inbox, please check your junk or spam folder.

Register here

for the Tuesday, November 3, 2026, 11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. session.

New York City Department of Education's rejection of an application for security clearance held irrational under the circumstances

A New York State Supreme Court denied the Plaintiff's CPLR Article 78 petition seeking annulment of a determination by the New York City Department of Education [DOE] resulting in an administratively closing Plaintiff's application for a security clearance. 

The Appellate Division unanimously reversed the Supreme Court's ruling, on the law, reinstated Plaintiff's Article 78 proceeding and granted the Plaintiff's petition to the extent of annulling DOE's determination and directed DOE to process Plaintiff's security clearance application. This decision of the Appellate Division ultimately resulted in Plaintiff and DOE entering into a settlement agreement resolving* the prior Article 78 proceeding brought by Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff was subsequently nominated for appointment to a position by an independent agency that provided such services to DOE. Such employment, however, was contingent  on Plaintiff receiving security clearance with DOE. Plaintiff was then notified that her application was "administratively closed with no determination made," explaining that she had been "nominated for a position as a Speech Pathologist with independent providers" and that based on the terms of the settlement agreement she was not permitted to work as an independent provider. Petitioner challenged DOE's determination by filing a second CPLR Article 78 action. 

It was undisputed that Plaintiff was nominated for a position by Salveo, an agency providing such services to DOE. The Appellate Division, rejecting DOE's claim that Plaintiff had admitted her role to be that of an independent provider, explained that DOE misread Plaintiff's petition. Plaintiff, said the Appellate Division, used the phrase to describe the ambiguity at issue and did not concede DOE's interpretation, concluded that DOE's determination rested on its misreading of the settlement agreement. 

* The Appellate Division's decision notes that DOE retained "the right to deny [Petitioner] clearance . . . for any reason, other than the reasons that gave rise to the [prior] litigation."

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

Selected items posted on the Internet during the week ending October 30, 2026

Cybersecurity on a Tight Government Budget? Explore approaches to strengthening cyber defenses without stretching already limited government resources. Learn More

States offer billions in incentives to support economic development each year Focusing on job training and other services instead of cash could improve the cost-benefit ratio, according to a new paper. Read More

Webinar: Make your first Year of Brownfields Funding count Learn practical strategies to manage funding effectively, meet EPA requirements and support future funding opportunities. Register today

Twenty-two states have adopted laws expanding opportunities for accessory dwelling units But passing laws doesn't always mean more homes get built. Read More

A New Era for Justice Information Sharing This paper explores how cloud, AI and other technological advancements are creating new opportunities for secure justice information sharing. DOWNLOAD

Close the Utility and Local Government Workforce Gap See how intelligent payment tools and digital self-service options can handle routine billing and customer service tasks, giving government staff more time for work that requires their expertise.

DOWNLOAD

How the City of Newport News Is Raising the Bar for Open Government  Facing a surge in public records requests, Newport News centralized FOIA management to improve transparency, streamline compliance and strengthen public access to government information. READ NOW

Modernizing CJIS Compliance: A Path to Secure Information Sharing and AI Readiness This guide breaks down what agencies need to know about CJIS Security Policy Version 6.1, including new requirements for encryption, vulnerability management, incident reporting and information-sharing agreements. DOWNLOAD