ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [AI] IS NOT USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN PREPARING NYPPL SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Aug 27, 2013

Employer pension contribution rates announced for fiscal year 2014-15

Employer pension contribution rates announced for fiscal year 2014-15
Source: Office of the State Comptroller

On August 27, 2013, Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli reported that employer contribution rates for the New York State and Local Retirement System will decline slightly in Fiscal Year 2014-15.

The average contribution rate for the Employee Retirement System (ERS) will decrease by 0.8 percent of payroll, from 20.9 percent to 20.1 percent. The average contribution rate for the Police and Fire Retirement System (PFRS) will decrease by 1.3 percent of payroll, from 28.9 percent to 27.6 percent.

“The New York State Common Retirement Fund’s strong gains over the last four years have mitigated some of the impact of the financial market collapse of 2008-2009,” DiNapoli said. “Strong investment performance, along with a revision in actuarial smoothing, has lowered the employer contribution rate for 2014-15.”

Employer rates are determined based on actuarial assumptions recommended by the Retirement System’s actuary and approved by DiNapoli.

The Retirement System’s actuary recommended a change based on a recommendation from Buck Consultants, LLC, as part of an independent actuarial review which is performed every five years. The previous method separated assets into equities and non-equities, while the new method expects the entire fund to earn the assumed rate of return and smoothes any unexpected gains or losses. According to Buck, the new method is generally used by the majority of public pension systems nationwide.

In 2012, DiNapoli directed the Retirement System to give employers access to a full projection of their annual pension bill by September 1, six weeks earlier than in previous years. Employers use this projection for preparation of their local budgets and calculation of tax levies subject to the property tax cap effective for fiscal years that begin in 2014.

Projections of required contributions will vary by employer depending on factors such as retirement plans, salaries and the distribution of their employees among the six retirement tiers. The employer contribution rates announced today will apply to each employer’s salary base during the period of April 1, 2014 through March 31, 2015. Payments based on those rates are due by February 1, 2015, but may be pre-paid on December 15, 2014.

N.B. The property tax cap generally limits the amount a government entity can increase its annual tax levy to two percent or the rate of inflation, whichever is less. The cost of pensions above a change in the average contribution rate by more than two percentage points is excluded from the tax cap. Since the ERS and PFRS rates have declined, there will not be any exclusion for this period.

.

Aug 24, 2013

Selected reports and information published by New York State's Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli

Selected reports and information published by New York State's Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli
Issued during the week ending August 24, 2013

The State Comptroller audits local governments to assist them in improving their financial management practices. [Click on text highlighted in bold to access the full report.] 

DiNapoli, NYBDC Announce $3.2 Million Loan to Nirvana Water

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli and New York Business Development Corporation CEO Pat MacKrell announced a $3.2 million loan to Nirvana Water, based in Boonville in Oneida County on August 21, 2013 . The loan marks a milestone of 1,000 loans granted to small businesses in New York using funds from the New York State Common Retirement Fund.


DiNapoli Announces Two SoftBank Capital Investments In New York City Tech Market

Two New York City–based technology companies, RebelMouse and Coopkanics, received venture funding from SoftBank Capital, an investment partner of the New York State Common Retirement Fund, through the In–State Private Equity Program, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced August 20, 2013.


DiNapoli: New York’s Job Count Up, Though Growth Slows

For the first time in six years, national job growth rates have exceeded those in New York State, according to a new report on economic trends released August 23, 2013 by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli.


Comptroller DiNapoli Releases Municipal Audits

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli Wednesday announced his office completed audits of

the Carthage–Wilna Fire District;









New York State Fair

Comptroller DiNapoli will be at the New York State Fair in Syracuse on Monday, August 26th. During his visit, the Comptroller and staff from the Division of Unclaimed Funds will present unclaimed funds checks to Central New York owners.

You can join the conversation and see information about his visit on Facebook at www.facebook.com/nyscomptroller.
.

Aug 23, 2013

The Adjunct Law Professor’s LawBlog has a new look


The Adjunct Law Professor’s LawBlog has a new look

The Adjunct Law Professor Law Blog, which has as its focus personnel law in general and public personnel law in particular, has been completely redesigned.

Recent posts include summaries of decisions addressing discrimination against the disabled and claims alleging same sex harassment.

Aug 22, 2013

New York State’s Student Internship Program Offers Hundreds Of Internships



New York State’s Student Internship Program Offers Hundreds Of Internships
Source: New York State Department of Civil Service
Civil Service Commissioner Jerry Boone recently announced that New York State has hundreds of internships available, and reminded college students to apply for Fall semester internships before the application deadline on September 3, 2013.

New York State created a one-stop website at http://nysinternships.com/nnyl/ that allows students to view and apply for internship opportunities across an array of state agencies both downstate and upstate.

The website is one component of Governor Andrew M. Cuomo’s New New York Leaders initiative, which is focused on attracting new talent to state government through both a fellowship program and an internship program.  With the internship website, applicants can view job descriptions, create profiles, specify interests, and upload resumes, writing samples and letters of recommendation.  Students can apply for multiple internships at the same time.

“The internship program is designed to attract and mentor a new generation of talented leaders for New York State,” said Governor Andrew M. Cuomo.  “I continue to encourage talented college students to consider devoting time to public service while acquiring valuable skills and marketable work experience.”

“New York State continues to offer a wide variety of opportunities across numerous professional occupations,” said Civil Service Commissioner Jerry Boone.  “Governor Cuomo’s internship program offers opportunities for hands on experience in finance, engineering, public relations, information technology and health care, as well as a host of other professional disciplines.”

The program is open to resident graduate and undergraduate students as well as students who attend schools in other states, but reside in New York.  Opportunities include both paid and unpaid positions.  Internships may include academic credit depending on the policy of the educational institution.

.

Public employee pensions account for about 3% of government spending

Public employee pensions account for about 3% of government spending
Source: New York State Teachers’ Retirement System

According to a February 2012 report by the National Association of State Retirement Administrators (NASRA), “on the average, pension costs for state and municipal governments are just shy of 3% of total spending.”

The NASRA report noted that “State and local government pension benefits are paid not from general operating revenues, but from trust funds to which public retirees and their employers contributed while they were working. …On average, public pension programs remain a small part of state and local government spending.”

NASRA’s calculations were based on the most-recent data then available from the U.S. Census Bureau. (Read more)
.

Aug 21, 2013

Retraining and progressive discipline deemed inappropriate penalties where correction officer was found guilty of using excessive force against an inmate

Retraining and progressive discipline deemed inappropriate penalties where correction officer was found guilty of using excessive force against an inmate
OATH Index Nos. 731/13 & 1000/13

OATH Administrative Law Judge Alessandra R. Zorgniotti recommended that a correction officer found guilty of using improper force on four occasions be terminated from his position.

The New York City Department of Correction alleged that the correction officer used excessive physical force in dealing with prison inmates such as choking inmates, punching inmates in the head, and slamming one inmate against a wall. Among the charges served on the correction officer was one that alleged that he hit an adult inmate with a radio. 

The correction officer was also charged with making false statements in interviews concerning his conduct. 

ALJ Zorgniotti found that the correction officer’s use of deadly force and his inability to appreciate the seriousness of his misconduct indicated that retraining and progressive discipline were inappropriate penalties.

Accordingly Judge Zorgniotti recommended the individual be dismissed from his position.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://archive.citylaw.org/oath/13_Cases/13-731.pdf
.

Determining eligibility for accidental disability benefits


Determining eligibility for accidental disability benefits
Mruczek v McCall, 299 AD2d 638,
Steven v McCall,
**
 
The Mruczek Case:The Mruczek decision demonstrates the burden an individual has in proving that he or she is eligible for accidental disability benefits or line of duty disability benefits. The test to be met is difficult. 

In the words of the Appellate Division, in order for an injury to be the result of an accident for the purposes of eligibility for [accidental] disability retirement benefits within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law, it must "result from a `sudden, fortuitous mischance, unexpected, out of the ordinary and injurious in impact' and [be] unrelated to the ordinary risks of employment." 

The Comptroller sustained ERS's rejection of Patrick M. Mruczek's applications for accidental, or in the alternative, performance of duty, disability retirement benefits.

Mruczek, a correction officer at the Attica correctional facility, claimed he was injured while at work when he fell over a "feed-up" cart as he proceeded to remove his lunch from a microwave oven. According to Mruczek, he was talking to the hall captain when he heard the bell on the microwave oven. Turning around to retrieve his meal, he fell over a feed-up cart that he alleged had been placed behind him by an inmate. Mruczek also testified that it was normal for inmates to use the feed-up carts and that it was not uncommon to see the carts in the block area in which the accident occurred. 

The Employees' Retirement System [ERS] explained that it had rejected Mruczek's applications because the occurrence was neither (1) an accident nor (2) a result of the acts of an inmate. The Comptroller affirmed ERS's ruling; Mruczek appealed.

The Appellate Division held that "[u]nder these circumstances, the Comptroller could rationally conclude that [Mruczek's] injury occurred as a result of his misstep while he was engaged in a routine activity rather than a sudden, fortuitous and unexpected event."


The Stevens Case: In Stevens the Appellate Division, 3rd Department affirmed the Comptroller's decision that a Nassau County police officer, Gordon F. Stevens, did not qualify for accidental disability retirement benefits.

Stevens was the commanding officer of the County's Marine/Aviation Bureau. He injured his arm while he was assisting other officers engaged in launching a 36-foot patrol vessel weighing 30,000 pounds.

The Appellate Division said that "[c]rucial to the finding of an accident ... is `a precipitating accidental event ... which was not a risk of the work performed.'" Stevens contended that he was not engaged in a task he normally performed and he had never before participated in launching a boat. However, he also said that it was his job was to "make sure everything [got] done" and indicated that, because of the urgency of the situation, he physically assisted in launching the boat. In addition, a former commanding officer of the Bureau testified that it was the responsibility of the commanding officer to see to it that all functions of the Bureau were accomplished and this included physically assisting in the performance of certain tasks if necessary to fulfill this responsibility. 

The court's conclusion: notwithstanding the fact that Stevens had not previously participated in launching the patrol boat, there was substantial evidence to support the Comptroller's finding that "it was a task inherent in [Stevens'] regular duties as commanding officer to carry out the functions of the Bureau" and, therefore, it declined to disturb the Comptroller's determination disapproving Steven's application. 

**The decision is posted on the Internet at http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/ad3/decisions/2002/91879.pdf
.

Aug 20, 2013

Aspiration for another position with the employer not a property right


Aspiration for another position with the employer not a property right
Gokaran Singh v District Council 37, et al. US Circuit Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit; 05-2255*

The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of Gokaran Singh’s complaint that he had been denied due process in connection with his alleged loss of property rights due him by his employer. The lower court had dismissed Singh's petition because, it held, Singh failed to demonstrate that he had been deprived of a cognizable property interest by his employer.

Singh’s complaint was based on his interest in obtaining employment in other positions within his Department, the New York City Department of Design & Construction, and his desire for an “exceptional performance” evaluation.

These objectives, said the court are “abstract need[s], desire[s] or unilateral expectation[s]” and do not satisfy the requirement that Singh demonstrate that he has been denied a property right.

* This summary order will not be published in the federal reporter and may not be cited as precedential authority to this or any other court, but may be called to the attention of this or any other court in a subsequent stage of this case, in a related case, or in any case for purposes of collateral estoppel or res judicata.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://federal-circuits.vlex.com/vid/singh-v-district-council-25604512
,

Free speech related to job action by teachers trumps initiating disciplinary action where there is no threat to a school's effective operation


Free speech related to job action by teachers trumps initiating disciplinary action where there is no threat to a school's effective operation
2013 NY Slip Op 05633, Appellate Division, Second Department

A teacher [Petitioner] was served with disciplinary charges alleging misconduct flowing from her participation in a “job action” near school grounds in the course of collective bargaining. Found guilty of misconduct and fined $1,000 by the Education Law §3020-a arbitrator, Petitioner challenged the determination by filing a petition pursuant to CPLR Article 75 in an effort to vacate the arbitration award.

According to the decision, the School District and the District's teachers' union were engaged in negotiations on a new collective bargaining agreement. As negotiations continued without an agreement, teachers engaged in concerted actions, including weekly picketing in front of a school. The district filed disciplinary charges against a number of teachers, including Petitioner, alleging that the job action "intentionally created a health and safety risk … by purposely situating [their] vehicle[s] … in order to preclude children from being dropped off at curbside” in front of the school building.

The Appellate Division initially noted that where arbitration is statutorily required, as is the case in an Education Law §3020-a disciplinary action, "judicial review under CPLR Article 75 is broad, requiring that the award be in accord with due process and supported by adequate evidence in the record." Further, said the court, "The award must also be rational and satisfy the arbitrary and capricious standards of CPLR Article 78" and "Due process of law requires . . . that the [arbitrator's determination] under the power conferred by statute have a basis not only in his good faith, but in law and the record before him [or her]."

The Appellate Division then noted that in two earlier appeals involving teachers disciplined for their involvement the same job actions, it was found that  “the evidence at the hearing provided a rational basis for the arbitrator's determination that the teachers contributed to the creation of a health and safety hazard, and that the awards were not arbitrary and capricious.”* This, said the court, was true in Petitioner’s case as well.

That said, the Appellate Division vacated the arbitration awards handed down in the two earlier cases and then did the same in Petitioner’s case.

In the two earlier cases the appellate court determined that the School District failed to meet its burden of demonstrating the teachers charged with misconduct, who were then engaged in the exercise of their First Amendment rights, so threatened the school's effective operation as to justify the imposition of discipline.

Accordingly, the Appellate Division granted Petitioner’s appeal “for the same reasons, i.e., her job-related activity regarding collective bargaining issues” indisputably addressed matters of public concern and the School District failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that Petitioner's exercise of her First Amendment rights so threatened the school's effective operation as to justify the imposition of discipline.


The decision is posted on the Internet at:
.

SUNY at Albany's sabbatical leave policies and procedures reviewed by the State Comptroller

SUNY at Albany's sabbatical leave policies and procedures reviewed by the State Comptroller
Source: Office of the State Comptroller

A State Comptroller’s audit reports that State University of New York at Albany [SUNY-Albany] officials “failed to consistently follow guidelines for sabbatical leaves and granted questionable paid leave to other employees, unnecessarily costing taxpayers more than $1 million.”The Comptroller recommended that SUNY-Albany “Take actions as needed, including the recovery of improper compensation payments, to address the matters presented.”

As to efforts to recover “improper compensation payments," in Trumansburg Central School District v Chalone, 87 A.D.2d 921, the Appellate Division agreed with the School District that it could recover the salary it paid to an educator during his sabbatical leave when he failed to return to his position as agreed upon completion of the leave.

Similarly, in State of New York v Gordon, 102 A.D.2d 990, affirmed, 64 N.Y.2d 712, the court ruled that the employer could recover the cost of the benefits it provided to an individual placed on leave for training purposes in the event he or she fails to return to his or her job.

Also, the State Comptroller has advised that a municipality may adopt a resolution requiring employees who are sent to schools for specialized training at the municipality’s expense in order to qualify for a promotion to reimburse the municipality for the cost of such training if they resign from their position within a specified period of time (Op. St. Comp. 82-4). 

* The Comptroller’s SUNY-Albany audit report is posted on the Internet at:

 .
NYPPL Publisher Harvey Randall served as Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Civil Service; Director of Personnel, SUNY Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; and Staff Judge Advocate General, New York Guard. Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.

CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the information and, or, decisions summarized in NYPPL. For example, New York State Department of Civil Service's Advisory Memorandum 24-08 reflects changes required as the result of certain amendments to §72 of the New York State Civil Service Law to take effect January 1, 2025 [See Chapter 306 of the Laws of 2024]. Advisory Memorandum 24-08 in PDF format is posted on the Internet at https://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/pdf/AM24-08Combined.pdf. Accordingly, the information and case summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
New York Public Personnel Law. Email: publications@nycap.rr.com