Computerized monitoring system records deemed substantial evidence of guilt in a disciplinary proceeding

Computerized monitoring system records deemed substantial evidence of guilt in a disciplinary proceeding

2015 NY Slip Op 03919, Appellate Division, First Department

An employee [Petitioner] was found guilty of the disciplinary charges filed against him alleging that he failed to follow standard that resulted in an injury to an individual using an “out of service” building elevator. Both elevators in the building were “in inspection mode and not in service when the injury occurred”

The penalty imposed: termination of the Petitioner from his position.

Petitioner filed an Article 78 action challenging the appointing authority’s decision and the penalty imposed. The Appellate Division, citing Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1, 34 NY2d 222, sustained the appointing authority’s decision.

The court explained that substantial evidence in the record supported the appointing officer’s action. The evidence in the record included:

1. The applicable written standard safety measures to be undertaken during elevator repair and/or outages, i.e., the appropriate and necessary warning notice had not been posted by Petitioner

2. Evidence that both elevators being out of service at the same time warranted the standard safety measures of posting out-of-service notices at the elevator banks and securing the elevators so that the public could not use them;

3. Evidence that Petitioner failed to follow these standard procedures;

4. A computerized elevator monitoring system printout and testimony interpreting the data; and

5. Recorded 911 calls.

The Appellate Division explained that notwithstanding Petitioner's arguments to the contrary, the hearing record contained substantial evidence supporting the appointing authority’s decision finding Petitioner [1] guilty of the charges filed against him and [2] the penalty imposed.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_03919.htm

_____________

A Reasonable Disciplinary Penalty Under the Circumstances - a 442-page volume focusing 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. Now available in two formats - as a large, paperback print edition, and as an e-book.

For more information click on http://booklocker.com/books/7401.html

_____________

Applying the doctrine of estoppel against a governmental entity

Applying the doctrine of estoppel against a governmental entity

2015 NY Slip Op 02551, Appellate Division, Third Department

In Owens v McGuire, 121 AD2d 292, the Appellate Division said that the doctrine of estoppel can only be applied “against a governmental entity if failure to apply the doctrine would defeat a right legally and rightfully obtained.”

In 2004 representatives of the New York State and Local Retirement System [System] told an individual [Member] that he was eligible to receive member service credit in the System for his employment with the Legal Aid Society of Westchester County from 1973 to 1975.

In January 2011, Member filed an application for a retirement allowance. However the System then determined that the Legal Aid Society was not a participating employer in the Retirement System and thus Member was not entitled to member service credit for the period during which he served with the Legal Aid Society. Member, seeking a reversal of the System’s determination, requested, and was given a hearing

In the course of the hearing a number of Retirement System employees testified that the Legal Aid Society was not a participating employer and the Hearing Officer denied Member's application for member service credit for the period during which he was employed by the Legal Aid Society. The Comptroller adopted the hearing officer’s ruling and Member appealed.

The Appellate Division sustained the Comptroller’s decision, explaining that a “petitioner has the burden of proof to establish his [or her] entitlement to retirement [member] service credit.” Here, noted the court, Member had testified that he had no evidence that the Legal Aid Society was ever a participating employer in the Retirement System.

Accordingly, said the court, inasmuch as the record reflects that Member was not employed by a participating employer during the period in question, the Comptroller’s denial of the retirement service credit was supported by substantial evidence.

Member had also contended that the System was estopped from denying the retirement member service credit based on the earlier misinformation provided to him by employees of the Retirement System. The court disagreed and rejected this branch of Member’s appeal.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_02551.htm

The absence of the individual who rated the employee unsatisfactory from the administrative hearing may be cured by the testimony of a superior who also observed and rated the employee’s performance

The absence of the individual who rated the employee unsatisfactory from the administrative hearing may be cured by the testimony of a superior who also observed and rated the employee’s performance

2015 NY Slip Op 03787, Appellate Division, First Department

Supreme Court denied a teacher’s [Teacher] petition seeking to annul the appointing authority’s sustaining unsatisfactory rating given Teacher for the school year in question.

Teacher appealed but the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s determination.

Teacher had contended that the appointing authority had “violated Department of Education Bylaw §4.3.3,” alleging that the assistant principal responsible for three of the four unsatisfactory observation reports was not present at the administrative hearing at which Teacher had challenged the performance rating he had received.

The Appellate Division first addressed a procedural issue – was Teacher’s complaint with respect to the absence of the assistance principal from the hearing ripe for the court’s review. It decided that Teacher’s claim regarding the absence of the assistant principal “was unpreserved” as Teacher did not raise this issue before the agency, citing Seitelman v Lavine, 36 NY2d 165 and thus could not be considered in this appeal.

Not withstanding the rejection of Teacher’s challenge on procedural grounds, the court said that regardless of the failure of Teacher to preserve the matter for the purpose of appeal, the record showed that the appointing authority’s determination had a rational basis as it was supported by the testimony of the school principal, who conducted a formal observation of Teacher’s performance and reached the same conclusions as the assistant principal.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_03787.htm

An employee injured on the job may sue for injuries he or she subsequently suffered while being transported to a hospital for treatment for his or her job related injuries

An employee injured on the job may sue for injuries he or she subsequently suffered while being  transported to a hospital for treatment for his or her job related injuries

2015 NY Slip Op 03506, Appellate Division, Second Department

A correction officer [Officer] sustained an injury in the course of his employment at a New York City corrections facility.  While Officer was being transported in a New York City Fire Department ambulance to a local hospital, the ambulance was involved in a motor vehicle accident. 

Officer applied for workers' compensation benefits for the injuries he sustained in the prison. In addition, Officer filed a lawsuit against, among others, the City of New York, the New York City Fire Department and the ambulance driver [Defendants] seeking damages for the injuries he allegedly sustained as a result of the motor vehicle accident that  occurred while he was being transported to the hospital.

Supreme Court denied Defendants’ motions to {1] amend its answer “to add an affirmative defense based on the exclusivity of the Workers' Compensation Law,” and [2] for summary judgment “dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.” 

Defendants appealed but the Appellate Division sustained the Supreme Court’s ruling.

While "In general, workers compensation benefits are the exclusive remedy of an employee against an employer for any damages sustained from injury or death arising out of and in the course of employment," the Appellate Division said that even if a plaintiff received workers' compensation benefits, he or she is not precluded from commencing a separate action based on subsequent negligent conduct to recover damages for injuries causally related to the initial on-the-job injury, "but which did not arise out of or in the course of the plaintiff's employment.”

The Appellate Division found that such was the case in this action, explaining that notwithstanding Officer’s filing a claim for workers' compensation benefits for the injuries he sustained “on the job,” he was not precluded from commencing a separate action to recover for damages he allegedly suffered that were “caused by separate injuries that occurred outside the scope of his employment” – i.e., in the course of his being transported to a hospital by ambulance. 

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_03506.htm

A police department may not be liable injuries caused by a police officer if the officer was not acting "within the scope of his or her employment and in furtherance of the employer's business."

A police department may not be liable injuries caused by a police officer if the officer was not acting "within the scope of his or her employment and in furtherance of the employer's business."

2015 NY Slip Op 03496, Appellate Division, Second Department

Among the defendants in this wrongful death action involving a police officer [Officer] were Officer’s employers: the Town Police Department and Town [Defendants]. 

The complaint alleged that Officer was handling his "off-duty handgun" when it went off and killed his friend, the deceased victim [Victim]. The Administrator of Victim’s estate and family members sued the Defendants, alleging, in relevant part, that Defendants were liable for the Victim’s death because Defendants were negligent in the hiring, retention, and supervision” of Officer. It was also claimed that the Defendant's were "vicariously liable" for Victim’s death pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior.

Supreme Court denied Defendants’ motions to dismiss them from the action “for failure to state a cause of action.” Defendants appealed. The Appellate Division ruled that Supreme Court should have granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint as to them.

As to the Administrator’s “negligent hiring, retention and supervision” claims, the Appellate Division explained that a necessary element of this cause of action is that the "employer knew or should have known of the employee's propensity for the conduct which caused the injury." 

Here, said the Appellate Division, the evidentiary material submitted by Administrator failed to demonstrate that Defendants were guilty of the alleged “negligent hiring, retention, or supervision” of Officer.

Addressing that part of  Administrator’s compliant that alleged Defendants were vicariously liable pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior, the Appellate Division said that the doctrine of respondeat superior requires a showing that alleged wrongdoing committed by the employer’s employee occurred while that employee was acting “within the scope of employment and in furtherance of the employer's business."

The Appellate Division found that although Administrator’s complaint “generally alleged” that Officer was acting within the scope of his employment and in furtherance of the Defendant’s' purpose, the fact alleged by Administrator was “not a fact at all” and “no significant dispute exists regarding it.”  Again, said the Appellate Division, the Supreme Court “should have granted” Defendants’ motion to dismiss the part of Administrator’s cause of action.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_03496.htm

The activities of the State’s Joint Commission on Public Ethics and the Legislative Ethics Commission to be reviewed

The activities of the State’s Joint Commission on Public Ethics and the Legislative Ethics Commission to be reviewed

Members of a Review Commission, the JCOPE Review Commission, have been appointed. The Review Commission is to review and evaluate the activities and performance of the State’s Joint Commission on Public Ethics and the Legislative Ethics Commission.

The Review Commission's report addressing the State’s Joint Commission on Public Ethics and the Legislative Ethics Commission activities, and which is to include its recommendations with respect to strengthening the administration and enforcement of ethics laws in New York State, must be delivered to the Governor and to the Legislature on or before November 1, 2015.

The eight individuals named to the Review Commission by Governor Andrew M. Cuomo, Temporary President and Majority Leader of the Senate Dean G. Skelos, and Speaker of the Assembly Carl E. Heastie are:

Anthony Crowell, Dean at New York Law School and former counsel to Mayor Michael Bloomberg, is an expert in state and local government law. He also previously served as Special Counsel to the Mayor and Assistant Corporation Counsel in the New York City Law Department’s Tax & Condemnation and Legal Counsel Divisions, and at the International City/County Management Association. Dean Crowell earned a law degree, cum laude, from American University and a Bachelor of Arts, magna cum laude, from the University of Pennsylvania.

Michael S. Feldberg is a partner at Allen & Overy LLP, where he is the head of the firm’s U.S. litigation practice. He is a former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and has experience litigating and trying cases in a wide variety of areas, with a special emphasis on the defense of federal criminal and regulatory cases as well as federal civil litigation. He graduated from Harvard Law School, cum laude, in 1977, and Harvard College, magna cum laude, in 1973.

Seymour James is the Attorney-in-Chief of The Legal Aid Society in New York City. Mr. James joined The Legal Aid Society in 1974 as a staff attorney and has served in various supervisory capacities. He is a member of the New York State Justice Task Force, the Committee on Character and Fitness for the Second Judicial Department, and the New York State Permanent Sentencing Commission, and was recently appointed to Mayor DeBlasio's Task Force on Behavioral Health and the Criminal Justice System. James also serves on the Executive Committee of the State Bar's Criminal Justice Section and on the State Bar's Committee on Leadership Development. He is a member of the Board of Directors of the Correctional Association of New York and the New York State Defenders Association and a member of the Chief Defender Council and the Defender Policy Group of the National Legal Aid and Defender Association. James earned his law degree from Boston University School of Law, and his undergraduate degree from Brown University.

Tony Jordan was elected as Washington County District Attorney in 2013. Prior to becoming district attorney he served in the New York State Assembly for three terms representing parts of Saratoga and Washington Counties. Jordan was a partner in the law firm of Jordan & Kelly LLC, and served as an Assistant District Attorney in Washington County before his time in the Assembly. He earned a law degree from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1995 magna cum laude, and received his bachelor’s degree from the University of Notre Dame in 1986.

William LaPiana is the Rita and Joseph Solomon Professor of Wills, Trusts, as well as the Estates Director, Estate Planning, Graduate Tax Program for New York Law School, where he has taught since 1987. Prior to teaching, he also served as an associate at Davis Polk & Wardwell in New York. Dr. LaPiana is a Buffalo native who holds both a Ph.D. in History and a J.D. from Harvard, where he also received his B.A. and an M.A.

Elizabeth Moore is currently Senior Vice President and General Counsel at Con Edison. She was formerly a former partner in the firm of Nixon Peabody LLP, where she specialized in public finance, employment law, procurement policy, and government compliance and regulatory issues. Ms. Moore previously served for 12 years in the administration of former New York Governor Mario Cuomo, and was Counsel to the Governor from 1991 to 1994. Moore earned a law degree from St. John’s University and a Bachelor of Science from the School of Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell University, where she is a member of the Board of Trustees.

Patricia Salkin, Dean at Touro Law School, is a nationally recognized scholar on land use law and zoning. She formerly served as a professor of law, as well as Associate Dean and Director of the Government Law Center of Albany Law School and as an Assistant Counsel for NYS Office of Rural Affairs. Dean Salkin is co-chair of the NYS Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Legal Education and Admission to the Bar. She served two terms as an appointed member of the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, a Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Dean Salkin earned a law degree, cum laude, from Albany Law School of Union University, and a Bachelor of Arts degree, cum laude, from the State University at Albany.

Former Senator Dale Volker represented Western New Yorkers in the State Legislature for over 35 years before retiring in 2010. Formerly a police officer, he was first elected to the New York State Assembly in 1972, and three years later, won a special election to the Senate. During his time as a Senator he served as chairman of the Energy and Codes committees, as well as the Subcommittee on Alcoholism. Senator Volker earned his law degree from the University of Buffalo and his undergraduate degree from Canisius College.

Administrators, union leaders and attorneys involved with employment in the public sector issues may be interested in some of the LawBlogs listed by Justia

Administrators, union leaders and attorneys involved with employment in the public sector issues may be interested in visiting some of the LawBlogs tracked by Justia
Updated May 1, 2015

Justia currently tracks the readership of 6,122 Lawblogs in 74 subcategories, ranking the most popular based on the number of visits to these LawBlogs using its BlawgSearch search engine. LawBlogs focusing on public employment personnel matters are listed at the following Justia sites:

 

“Administrative Law” Blawgs are listed at:

http://blawgsearch.justia.com/blogs/categories/administrative-law

“Employment Law” Blawgs are listed at:

http://blawgsearch.justia.com/blogs/categories/employment-law

 “Government Law” Blawgs are listed at:

http://blawgsearch.justia.com/blogs/categories/government-law

In addition, LawBlogs with a general “New York State” focus are listed at:

http://blawgsearch.justia.com/blogs/countries/united-states/new-york

Blawgers are chosen by the BlawgSearch team.

Withdrawing an application for service retirement benefits requires the member to file a written request to do so with the retirement system prior to the effective date of his or her retirement

Withdrawing an application for service retirement benefits requires the member to file a written request to do so with the retirement system prior to the effective date of his or her retirement 

126 AD3d 1281

A member [Member] of the New York State & Local Employees' Retirement System [System]  filed an application for service retirement benefits. At a meeting with a System representative Member learned that a domestic relations order had been filed with the System that provided that his former wife was to receive a portion of his monthly retirement benefit. Member, believing that the terms of the order were inaccurate, told the System’s representative that he did not wish to retire until that matter could be resolved.

However it became apparent that Member’s retirement application was still being processed by the System and Member telephoned the System and again stated that he did not wish to retire. Ultimately Member was told by his employer that “he had retired.”

Member then submitted a written request to withdraw his retirement application but his request was denied by the System as untimely. Subsequently a Hearing Officer found that Member was not entitled to withdraw his retirement application as his written request was untimely, which finding the Comptroller adopted and denied Member’s request to withdraw his application for retirement.

The Appellate Division confirmed the Comptroller decision, explaining that the Comptroller "is vested with the exclusive authority to resolve applications for retirement benefits," and those determinations will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence in the record. The court noted that a Member’s application for service retirement could only be withdrawn "by filing a written request to withdraw [it] prior to the [Member's] effective date of retirement." As Member “admittedly failed” to submit a timely a written request to withdraw his application for retirement, the Appellate Division ruled that the Comptroller's determination denying his written request to withdraw as untimely was supported by substantial evidence.

The court also rejected Member’s argument that the Comptroller should be equitably estopped from denying his request to withdraw his retirement application.

According to the Appellate Division's decision, Member “did nothing until the day before his retirement became effective, when he called ‘someone’ at [the System] and reiterated that he wanted to withdraw his retirement application.” Although Member claimed that the “unnamed employee told him that an oral withdrawal would be sufficient,” which it was not, the Appellate Division said that "even if the advice given by [the System’s] administrative employees was erroneous, it would not give rise to an estoppel here."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_02549.htm

A probationary teacher may be terminated from his or her position absent a showing that his or her dismissal was made in bad faith, in violation of law, or for a constitutionally impermissible purpose.

A probationary teacher may be terminated from his or her position absent a showing that his or her dismissal was made in bad faith, in violation of law, or for a constitutionally impermissible purpose

2015 NY Slip Op 03479, Appellate Division, First Department 

Supreme Court denied a probationary employee’s [Probationer] petition seeking to have the court annul the appointing authority’s decision to terminate Probationer’s services during her probationary period. The Appellate Division dismissed Probationer’s appeal of the Supreme Court’s ruling.

One of the arguments advanced by Probationer was that she had attained “tenure by estoppel” and thus was entitled to notice and hearing as a condition precedent to her dismissal from her position.

The Appellate Division held that Petitioner was not entitled to tenure by estoppel, explaining that Probationer, while serving an extension of her probationary appointment pursuant to an agreement providing for such an extension, had resigned from that position. The appointing authority subsequently reemployed Probationer as a teacher at a different school subject to a new three-year term of probation. This second probationary period was also extended pursuant to the terms of another agreement. The appointing authority then terminated Probationer’s employment before the expiration of this second extended term of probation.

Accordingly, said the court, Petitioner never taught beyond the expiration of the probationary terms of her employment with the school district, citing Juul v Board of Educ. of Hempstead School Dist. No. 1, Hempstead, 76 AD2d 837, aff’d 55 NY2d 648. The Appellate Division commented that Juul, a teacher, had agreed to forgo any claim to tenure in exchange for the extension of his probationary employment with the school district.

In contrast, the Appellate Division noted the decision in Matter of Gould v Board of Educ. of Sewanhaka Cent. High School Dist., 81 NY2d 446. In Gould the teacher was found to have attained tenure by estoppel “where she obtained tenure in her first position and taught beyond the two-year period of her probation in her second position.”

Finding that the appointing authority had not breached the second agreement extending Petitioner's probation at the second school, the court held that in the absence of a showing of bad faith, a violation of law, or a constitutionally impermissible purpose on the part of the appointing authority, Probationer could terminated from her probationary employment “for any reason or no reason at all.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_03479.htm

_____________

The Discipline Book - A concise guide to disciplinary actions involving public employees in New York State set out in a 2100+ page e-book. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/books/5215.html

_____________

Employer has the burden of proving an individual cannot perform the essential functions of the position regardless of any reasonable accommodation provided

Employer has the burden of proving an individual cannot perform the essential functions of the position regardless of any reasonable accommodation provided

2015 NY Slip Op 03465, Appellate Division, First Department

Supreme Court granted the New York City’s Department of Sanitation’s [DOS] motion to dismiss the Article 78 petition filed by an applicant [Applicant] for employment with DOS alleging “disability-based” unlawful discrimination “for failure to state a cause of action.”

Applicant appealed and the Appellate Division unanimously reversed the lower court’s ruling.

Applicant claimed that DOS refused to hire him, notwithstanding he otherwise proved qualified for employment as a sanitation worker based solely on his having a psoriasis condition on his hands. This said the court “makes out causes of action for disability-based discrimination under the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws.”

The State Human Rights Law required Applicant to plead that he could perform the essential functions of the job if he were afforded reasonable accommodation. Here, said the Appellate Division, Applicant’s complaint alleged that gloves would have constituted a sufficient accommodation to enable him to perform the work satisfied this requirement.

The court then explained that whether DOS was justified in considering Applicant’s psoriasis disqualified him for the position “on the grounds that the condition would have prevented him from performing the essential functions of the position" and “no accommodation (including gloves) would have obviated the interference” cannot be determined from the face of the complaint and the documentary exhibits annexed to it.

Although DOS had submitted evidence in support of its motion tending to show that Applicant's condition rendered him incapable of performing the job of a sanitation worker, its motion was not one seeking summary judgment and thus Supreme Court should have denied its motion to dismiss Applicant’s petition.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_03465.htm

An employee, as an active participant in a work-related tragedy rather than as a bystander, is eligible for workers’ compensation benefits

An employee, as an active participant in a work-related tragedy rather than as a bystander, is eligible for workers’ compensation benefits

126 AD3d 1250

In this Workers’ Compensation case an employee [Claimant] alleged that she had  sustained a compensable work-related mental injuries after she responded to the suicide of a patient.

A Workers' Compensation Law Judge found Claimant had disabling depression, anxiety and posttraumatic stress disorder stemming from that incident. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed, and the self-insured employer and its third-party administrator [Employer] controverted the Board’s decision and appealed.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s ruling, explaining that psychological injuries caused by witnessing the aftermath of a suicide have been held to be compensable where "the claimant was an active participant in the tragedy," as opposed to a bystander, citing Wolfe v Sibley, Lindsay & Curr Co., 36 NY2d 505.

Here, said the court, a patient leapt from a window at the facility where Claimant worked.   Claimant was one of the first workers to reach the scene and, despite her lack of medical training, was directed by her supervisor to retrieve an oxygen tank for the patient.

In the words of the Appellate Divisions: “Claimant did so, but began to feel anxious and hyperventilate and ‘lost it’ altogether after she was ordered by facility officials not to speak to investigators about her prior interactions with the patient.”

This, said the court, constituted substantial evidence for the Board's finding that Claimant was indeed an active participant in the events surrounding the suicide and that the Board was free to, and did, “credit medical evidence indicating that [Claimant} developed disabling depression, anxiety and posttraumatic stress disorder as a result of the incident.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_02533.htm

Selected reports and information published by New York State's Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli during the week ending April 25, 2015

Selected reports and information published by New York State's Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli during the week ending April 25, 2015

Click on text highlighted in color to access the full report

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced office released audits of State Department and Agencies have been issued:

Department of Motor Vehicles

Posted on the Internet at: http://www.osc.state.ny.us/audits/allaudits/093015/15s7.pdf

Department of Transportation

Posted on the Internet at: http://www.osc.state.ny.us/audits/allaudits/093015/14s52.pdf

and the

Workers’ Compensation Board

Posted on the Internet at: http://www.osc.state.ny.us/audits/allaudits/093015/14s43.pdf

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

Town of Champion Great Bend Fire District – Controls Over Financial Operations (Jefferson County)
The district has not submitted the required annual financial reports to the Office of State Comptroller for the 2011 through 2013 fiscal years. The district did not submit its tax levy limit calculations for 2015 or the three prior years. Auditors calculated the levy limit for 2015 and found the district’s proposed 2015 tax levy exceeded the statutory limit by $4,394 and the board did not pass a resolution to override the limit.

Chenango County – Departmental Cash Receipts (2015M-21)
County officials have ensured cash receipts are properly collected, recorded and deposited. Department officials have implemented effective controls including issuing duplicate receipts, segregating key financial duties, performing monthly reconciliations and cross-checking their records with the monthly treasurer’s report.

Jefferson County Soil and Water Conservation District – Internal Controls Over Selected Financial Operations (2014M-171)

The board was not provided with the necessary financial reports and information to properly oversee operating and grant activities or to develop realistic or structurally balanced budgets. As a result, the district borrowed $669,000 from grant funds to help pay operating costs.

Village of Woodsburgh – Claims Processing and Information Technology (Nassau County)
The board did not perform an effective claims audit to ensure transactions were properly authorized and approved or claims were for proper village purposes. The board also did not adopt a comprehensive IT policy or establish procedures addressing crucial aspects of IT security.


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

Campbell-Savona Central School District – Budget Review (Steuben County)
The significant revenue and expenditure projections in the tentative budget are reasonable. The district consistently appropriates fund balance that is not needed to fund operations. Two of the district’s reserves totaling $1.14 million appear to be overfunded. The district’s tentative budget complies with the property tax levy limit.

Cortland City School District – Budget Review (Cortland County)
The district has overestimated appropriations for payroll, health insurance, retirement, debt and utilities by $3.2 million. After the district’s planned use of $500,000 in fund balance, the remaining unassigned fund balance is only $200,000, or 0.4 percent, of the ensuing year’s appropriations. The district’s preliminary budget complies with the tax levy limit.

Fort Edward Union Free School District – Financial Condition (Washington County)
Although the board adopted reasonable budgets that included realistic estimates based on historical or known trends, the district relied on the appropriation of fund balance to finance recurring expenditures and, as a result, the budgets were not structurally balanced. As of June 30, 2014, the district reported an unrestricted fund balance that totaled $35,463, or .33 percent, of the ensuing year’s budgeted appropriations. District officials have developed a multiyear financial plan to address current and long-term financial trends.
 
Glens Falls Common School District – Financial Condition (Warren County)
The board did not adopt structurally balanced budgets that funded recurring expenditures with recurring revenues for the general fund for 2012-13, 2013-14 or 2014-15 fiscal years. Furthermore, the district’s general fund operating cash balance decreased by approximately $370,000 in one year. As a result, the district had to issue a tax anticipation note to meet cash flow needs during the 2014-15 fiscal year.

West Seneca Central School District – Financial Condition (Erie County)
The district had no operating cash on hand and very little fund balance at the end of 2013-14 fiscal year. The district incurred significant operating deficits in fiscal years 2010-11 through 2012-13. In addition, the district issues short-term debt to provide temporary cash flow and has improperly used a total of $7.5 million in reserve fund cash to help with cash flow in fiscal years 2012-13 and 2013-14.



Audit finds an additional $150,000 was stolen by an official of the Town of Beekman

Former Beekman Comptroller Frederick D. Knapp Jr. pleaded guilty to grand larceny in the second degree last Friday in Dutchess County Court after an audit and investigation by State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli uncovered a second theft of $150,000 in town funds, following an earlier admission by Knapp of stealing $390,000 while in office.

Posted on the Internet at: http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/audits/towns/2015/beekman.pdf

Fiscal Stress Scores for 17 cities released 
State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli issued fiscal stress scores  for the 17 cities in New York that have fiscal years ending between March 31 and July 31.

Posted on the Internet at:: http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/fiscalmonitoring/villagescities_stressed2014.htm

To search for a specific local government’s fiscal stress scores, visit:
http://wwe1.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/fiscalmonitoring/fsms.cfm
 

For an overview of Comptroller DiNapoli’s Fiscal Monitoring System, visit:
http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/fiscalmonitoring/index.htm

Audits find more than $500 Million in Medicare waste

State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli’s audits identified a total of $513 million in improper Medicaid payments and untapped revenue opportunities over a four-year period, according to a report released Wednesday. Auditors identified another $361 million in questionable transactions that will require further review and actions to prevent overpayments or recover costs.

Posted on the Internet at: http://www.osc.state.ny.us/audits/15d1.pdf