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

Oct 7, 2016

Selected reports issued by the New York State Comptroller during the week ending October 5, 2016


Selected reports issued by the New York State Comptroller during the week ending October 5, 2016: Completed audits of State Departments and Agencies; Municipalities and School Districts and BOCES
Source: Office of the State Comptroller

[Internet links highlighted in color]

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following audits have been issued and the full text of each are posted on the Internet:

State Departments and Agencies

State Education Department (SED): Selected Aspects of the Migrant Education Program (Follow-Up) (2016-F-9)
An audit report issued in May 2015 determined that the Migrant Education Program did not meet certain program outcomes and overarching program goals. SED did not complete federally required documents in a timely manner; and a significant portion of the Migrant Education Tutorial Services faced challenges obtaining migrant student performance data. In a follow-up report, auditors found SED has made significant progress in correcting the problems identified in the initial report. Several of the strategies the program plans to implement are scheduled to begin with the 2016-2017 school year. 

State Education Department: Kidz Therapy Services, PLLC, Compliance with the Reimbursable Cost Manual (2015-S-63)
For the three fiscal years ended June 30, 2014, auditors identified $249,850 in reported costs that did not comply with the state requirements for reimbursement and recommend such costs be disallowed. These ineligible costs included $240,553 in personal service costs and $9,297 in other than personal service costs.

Department of Health (DOH): Improper Fee-for-Service Payments for Pharmacy Services Covered by Managed Care (Follow-Up) (2016-F-5)
An audit issued in January 2015 determined that, for the 27-month period of Oct. 1, 2011 through Dec. 31, 2013, Medicaid inappropriately paid 29,289 fee-for-services pharmacy claims totaling $978,251 on behalf of 18,010 Medicaid recipients whose pharmacy benefits were covered by managed care. In a follow-up report, auditors determined DOH has made some progress in addressing the problems identified in the initial audit report. However, further actions are still needed.

Department of Health: Improper Payments for Controlled Substances That Exceed Allowed Dispensing Limits (Follow-Up) (2016-F-6)
An audit report issued in February 2015, determined that, for the period Jan. 1, 2009 through Dec. 31, 2013, Medicaid overpaid pharmacies $1,183,601 for 13,705 fee-for-service claims in which quantities of controlled substances exceeded the supply limits allowed. Auditors further identified 3,323 managed care claims for controlled substances in which the quantities dispensed exceeded the limits set by law. In a follow-up report, auditors found DOH has made progress in addressing the problems identified in the initial audit report. This included implementing controls to prevent the payment of pharmacy claims for quantities of controlled substances that exceeded supply limits. These actions resulted in the denial of approximately $3.3 million in claims through July 2016.

Department of Labor (DOL): Examination of Unemployment Insurance (UI) Benefits 2015 Year End Report (2016-BSE4-01)
Auditors identified 11,306 UI overpayments totaling more than $3.6 million. This includes $93,760 in current payment requests stopped, $280,276 in future payments that would have been made over the life of the claim and $3,311,848 in erroneous payments made. Based on the errors identified, DOL assessed $471,458 in monetary penalties to 344 claimants. Auditors also identified 588 underpayments totaling $105,744. DOL has recovered $253,968 in forfeited UI benefits from claimants who made false statements or representations to obtain benefits they were not eligible to receive and $488,138 from New York state employees who owed DOL for UI overpayments made in prior years.

Municipalities

Altona Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. – Financial Operations (Clinton County)
Company officials did not establish adequate controls or provide sufficient oversight of financial activities. Consequently, the company’s accounting records were not properly maintained, bank reconciliations were not prepared and crucial financial reports were inaccurate or not prepared and submitted to company officials or to the comptroller’s office.

City of Gloversville – Parking Violation Operations (Fulton County)
City officials have not established sufficient procedures for pursuing the collection of unpaid parking violations or set a benchmark for collection rates. The city collected $110,000 in revenues for 4,367 violations from January 2011 through April 2016, which represents 61 percent of total parking violations. The city could have collected an additional 1,757 parking violations totaling approximately $44,000 if it collected fines for 85 percent of the parking violation tickets issued. If the city collects the additional 24 percent of parking violations that are still outstanding, dating back to January 2011, the city could receive approximately $83,000 in additional revenue.

City of Jamestown – Financial Condition (Chautauqua County)
The city incurred operating deficits in fiscal years 2012 through 2015 totaling $2.8 million. As a result, general fund balance decreased by approximately 58 percent, from $4.8 million to $2 million. The city’s financial condition will continue to decline during 2016 because the adopted budget is again not structurally balanced. The city will likely incur an operating deficit of at least $400,000 unless significant and immediate spending changes are implemented.

Town of Warwarsing – Napanoch Water District Rents and Assessments (Ulster County)
The board needs to improve its internal controls over water rents to ensure that they are accurately billed and collected and assessments are properly levied. Auditors found that internal controls over water rents and assessments were inadequate and oversight is lacking. Because town officials were uncertain of district boundaries, assessments were not levied on all properties in the district. As a result, assessments charged to district property owners were higher than necessary.

School Districts and BOCES

Frankfort-Schuyler Central School District – Financial Management (Herkimer County)
District officials did not adopt budgets based on historical or known trends but instead overestimated expenditures by almost $2.7 million from 2011-12 through 2014-15. The district appropriated $2.4 million in fund balance as a financing source in the annual budgets for 2012-13 through 2015-16. However, the district’s budgeting practices resulted in operating surpluses in three of these years and will also likely end 2015-16 with an operating surplus. As a result, none of the appropriated fund balance will be needed to finance operations. The district also retained an average of approximately $342,000 of unrestricted funds in the debt service fund, $1.1 million in the agency fund’s group health insurance account and $429,000 in excessive reserves over these years. When adding back unused appropriated fund balance, excess money retained in the debt service, agency funds and reserves, the district’s recalculated unrestricted fund balance exceeded the statutory limit, averaging more than 18 percent of the ensuing year’s appropriations, or more than four times the statutory limit.

Hammondsport Central School District – Nonresident Tuition (Steuben County)
District officials should improve their billing process for nonresident students by determining actual attendance dates. Auditors reviewed 10 tuition invoices for seven nonresident students placed at the district totaling $219,941 from the 2012-13 through 2014-15 years. While district officials effectively identified nonresident students who were placed at the district, the treasurer ,a href="used incorrect attendance dates when calculating bills for three students. As a result, two home districts were underbilled by $5,078 and one home district was overbilled by $638.

Putnam Northern Westchester Board of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) – Information Technology and Claims Auditing (2016M-205)
BOCES officials need to improve controls to adequately secure and protect IT systems. The rooms housing the servers and IT infrastructure did not have safeguards to track access and protect IT assets, and BOCES officials have not developed a disaster recovery plan to guide action in the event of a disaster. Additionally, the board appointed a claims auditor but needs to improve its oversight of the claims auditing function. There was no evidence that 33 claims totaling $100,873 were checked to ensure they did not exceed their related purchase orders or that 13 claims totaling $42,526 agreed with approval contracts or agreements.

Raquette Lake Union Free School District – Monitoring Financial Condition (Hamilton County)
The board did not ensure that adequate accounting records and reports were maintained and did not effectively monitor the district’s financial operations. The clerk did not maintain accurate and complete accounting records and the treasurer did not provide the board with adequate periodic reports. Furthermore, auditors recalculated the district’s assets, liabilities and fund balance and found unrestricted fund balance deficits for the 2013-14 and 2014-15 fiscal years and budgetary deficits for the 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 fiscal years. Additionally, the district incurred a cash flow shortage that precluded employees from cashing their paychecks from July 2013 to September 2013.

Western Suffolk Board of Cooperative Educational Services – Budget Transfers and Confirming Purchase Orders (2016M-218)
The board did not always enforce its policies and procedures. Auditors reviewed 30 budget transfers totaling $9.2 million and found that 24 totaling $7.8 million were not presented to the board for approval. The board approved the remaining six budget transfers totaling $1.4 million between 18 and 70 days after the transfer was processed. The board’s ability to monitor the budget and ensure that account codes are not overspent is compromised when it does not approve budget transfers.

Oct 6, 2016

An employer is not liable for an employee's discriminatory acts targeting a co-worker unless the employer encouraged, condoned or approved such misconduct


An employer is not liable for an employee's discriminatory acts targeting a co-worker unless the employer encouraged, condoned or approved such misconduct
Figueroa v New York State Div. of Human Rights and Buffalo City School Dist., 2016 NY Slip Op 06319, Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Schwallie v New York State Div. of Human Rights and Buffalo City School Dist., 2016 NY Slip Op 06322, Appellate Division, Fourth Department
 
At the time of the alleged unlawful acts of employment discrimination both Rachel Figueroa and Ashleigh Schwallie were employed by the Buffalo City School District [District] and both worked at the same school.

They both alleged that they had been victims sexual harassment by a coworker. They subsequently filed separate complaints against the District alleging sexual harassment and retaliation with the New York State Division of Human Rights [Division]. The Division dismissed their respective complaints.

Then both Figueroa and Schwallie commenced separate proceedings pursuant to Executive Law §298* seeking court orders annulling the relevant decisions of the Division dismissing their complaints of sexual harassment and retaliation. The Appellate Division dismissed both appeals “on the merits.”

The court said it agreed with the District that substantial evidence supported the determinations of the Division that the District was not liable for the coworker's discriminatory conduct. The Appellate Division explained that "[u]nder [New York State’s] Human Rights Law, an employer cannot be held liable for an employee's discriminatory act[s] unless the employer became a party to [them] by encouraging, condoning, or approving [them]."

Neither Figueroa nor Schwallie had established that the District became a party to the alleged sexual harassment by a co-worker. Indeed, said the court, “the record establishes that [the District] reasonably investigated complaints of discriminatory conduct and took corrective action.”

The Appellate Division also found that substantial evidence supported the Division’s determinations that neither Figueroa nor Schwallie were subjected to retaliation by the District for complaining about alleged acts of unlawful discrimination by the co-worker. While both had established  prima facie cases of retaliation, the court found that the District "came forward with legitimate, independent, and nondiscriminatory reasons to support its employment decision[s]" and neither Figueroa not Schwallie had shown that that those reasons were pretextual,

With respect to alleged acts of alleged retaliation for filing a human rights complaint, where the employer has presented a lawful reason or explanation to rebut a charging party's prima facie evidence of retaliation, the burden shifts to the charging party to present facts to rebut each reason or explanation advanced by the employer in it defense against the charge of retaliation.

The Appellate Division unanimously confirmed the Division’s decisions and dismissed both petitions.

* §298 of the Executive Law provides for judicial review and enforcement of determinations by the New York State Division of Human Rights and provides, in pertinent part that “Any complainant, respondent or other person aggrieved by an order of the commissioner which is an order after public hearing … dismissing a complaint, … may obtain judicial review thereof ….”

The Figueroa decision is posted on the Internet at:

The Schwallie decision is posted on the Internet at:

Oct 5, 2016

Reducing health insurance prescription co-pay benefits for an employer’s retirees to the same level as the employer’s active employees' prescription co-pay benefit


Reducing health insurance prescription co-pay benefits for an employer’s retirees to the same level as the employer’s active employees' prescription co-pay benefit
Altic v Board of Educ., 2016 NY Slip Op 06315, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

As relevant to this action, §14 of Part B of Chapter 504 of the Laws of 2009  amended Chapter 729 of the Laws of 1994 and made permanent temporary legislation prohibiting a school district, a BOCES, or a vocational education and extension board providing health insurance benefits and employer contributions on behalf  retirees and their dependents that were less than the health insurance benefits and employer contributions it provide on behalf a corresponding group of active employees.*

In this action there was no question that the prescription co-pay benefits for retirees and active employees were identical from June 30, 1994, the effective date of this so-called Moratorium Statute through June 30, 2007. Effective July 1, 2007, pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement [CBA], the prescription co-pay benefit for active employees was reduced. The prescription co-pay benefit for active employees was again reduced pursuant to the terms and conditions of a subsequent CBA, effective September 1, 2013. 

Accordingly, Onondaga-Cortland-Madison Board of Cooperative Educational Services [OCM] reduced its prescription co-pay benefits for its active employees’ as the result of collective bargaining effective September 1, 2013. OCM subsequently reduced its prescription co-pay benefits for its retirees to the same level it paid on behalf of the active employees' for the prescription co-pay benefit effective April 1, 2014.

Nancy Altic, on behalf of herself and other OCM retirees, filed an Article 78 petition challenging OCM’s reduction of its prescription co-payment benefits it made on behalf of its retirees. Supreme Court granted Altic’s petition and annulled OCM’s decision to reduce the OCM’s prescription co-pay benefit for its retired employees to the then same level of its prescription co-pay benefit it made on behalf of its active employees as set out in the collective bargaining agreement. Supreme Court held that OCM had violated certain provisions of Chapter 504 of the Laws of 200.

OCM appealed and the Appellate Division unanimously reversed the Supreme Court’s ruling “on the law” and dismissed Altic’s petition.

The Appellate Division explained that the Moratorium Statute, first enacted in 1994 "sets a minimum baseline or floor for retiree health insurance benefits.” That floor was measured by the health insurance benefits received by active employees.” In other words, said the court, the Moratorium Statute “does not permit an employer to whom the statute applies to provide retirees with lesser health insurance benefits than active employees."

In view of this, the Appellate Division concluded that, “inasmuch as there was a corresponding diminution of  [prescription co-pay] benefits . . . effected [with respect to retired employees] . . . from the present level  … on or after June 30, 1994” to the level of the prescription co-pay benefits being made on behalf of active OCM employees, OCM did not violate the Moratorium Statute.

* §14 of Part B of Chapter 504 of the Laws of 2009 amended §1 of Chapter 729 of the laws of 1994, making permanent temporary legislation addressing the health insurance benefits and contributions to be made on behalf of retired employees of school districts, BOCES and certain other educational entities, to read as follows: “Section 1. From on and after June 30, 1994 [until May 15, 2010,]a school district, board of cooperative educational services, vocational education and extension board or a school district as enumerated in section 1 of chapter 566 of the laws of 1967, as amended, shall be prohibited from diminishing the health insurance benefits provided to retirees and their dependents or the contributions such board or district makes for such health insurance coverage below the level of such benefits or contributions made on behalf of such retirees and their dependents by such district or board unless a corresponding diminution of benefits or contributions is effected from the present level during this period by such district or board from the corresponding group of active employees for such retirees.” 

The decision is posted on the Internet at:



Oct 4, 2016

AELE posts items of special interest to those involved in public safety, law enforcement and firefighting on its LawBlog


Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, Inc. posts items of special interest to those involved in public safety, law enforcement and firefighting on its LawBlog
  [Internet links highlighted in color]

Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, Inc. [AELE] offers free access to certain publications. In addition, it has a searchable library of more than 35,000 case digests organized into 700 + indexed topics. Users do not have to preregister and there is no time limit on research sessions. Except for commercial purposes the contents of its online law library may be copied and pasted, saved or printed.

AELE’s current issues of its three publications, back issues since 2000, case digests since 1975, and a search engine are accessible through the Internet and AELE invites everyone to read, print or download AELE publications without charge. The main menu is at: http://www.aele.org/law

Some of the items listed on AELE’s October 2016 LawBlog are: 

AELE Monthly Law Journal article - Overtime Pay Entitlement for Public Safety Employees Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) – Part 2.View here.

Law Enforcement Liability Reporter - This issue has cases on assault and battery: flashbangs, dogs, false arrest/imprisonment with and without warrants, firearms related: Second Amendment, public protection: 911 systems, and search and seizure of persons and vehicles. View here.  

Fire, Police & Corrections Personnel Reporter - This issue has cases on First Amendment, Fair Labor Standards Act: donning and doffing uniforms and equipment, pay disputes, political activity/patronage employment, race/national origin discrimination, retaliatory personnel actions, sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and whistleblower protection. View here.

Jail and Prisoner Law Bulletin - This issue has cases on disability discrimination: prisoners, medical care, dental care, the "three strikes" rule of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, prisoner assault by inmates, prisoner discipline, religion, search of prisoners, and sexual assault. View here.

Discipline and Internal Investigations Seminar - AELE's 2016 seminar on Discipline and Internal Investigations for public safety agencies -police, corrections and the fire services - will be held in Las Vegas on October 24-26. This is a comprehensive 2 and a half day program will address all major aspects of discipline. The program covers both substantive and procedural issues as well as rules and regulations. The program includes the latest hot topics such as cell phones, social media, and constitutional issues. More information is available at http://www.aele.org/menu-disc.html

AELE’s annual seminar on Jail and Prisoner Legal Issues will be held in Las Vegas on January 9-12, 2017. More info at http://www.aele.org/menu-jail.html

Oct 3, 2016

Decisions involving an employee’s use of the employer's electronic equipment that resulted in disciplinary action being taken against an employee


Decisions involving an employee’s use of the employer's electronic equipment that resulted in disciplinary action being taken against an employee 

[Internet links highlighted in color]

Sprague v Spokane Valley Fire Department

Sprague v. Spokane Valley Fire Department, summarized by Dave Strausfeld, J.D. concerns a fire department captain who was discharged for sending religious messages to coworkers via the department’s internal email system was unable to prove that his First Amendment free speech rights were violated, held a Washington Court of Appeals, affirming a lower court’s grant of summary judgment. The email system was a nonpublic forum, and limiting its usage to fire department business was reasonable and viewpoint neutral. Judge Lawrence-Berrey filed a separate concurring opinion.

In dissent, Chief Judge Fearing argued the department had opened the email system to religious messages by forwarding newsletters from its health insurer about solving personal problems and living a healthy lifestyle, because the government may not “prefer secular chatter over religious oration” 

The full text of Mr. Srausfeld's summary of the decision is posted on the Internet at:

N.B. The foregoing summary was posted by Employment Law News, WK WorkDay - A service provided by Wolters Kluwer Legal and Regulatory U.S. No part of the above materials may be copied, photocopied, reproduced, translated, reduced to any electronic medium or machine-readable form, or retransmitted, in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of WK. Any other reproduction in any form without the prior written consent of WK is prohibited. Written consent may be obtained from WK. Please click here for more information.

Other decisions involving an employer’s use of electronic equipment underlying  disciplinary action being taken against the employee include:


Fraser v Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.
USDC, 135 F. Supp. 2d 623
The court held that an employee using his or her employer's computer equipment for personal business does not enjoy any "right to privacy" barring the employer’s reviewing the employee's e-mail that is stored in its computer system. Federal District Court Judge Anita B. Brody decided that an employer may peruse an employee's e-mail files that are stored in the system without violating either federal or Pennsylvania wiretap laws. On appeal the USCA, Third Circuit, affirmed the District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Nationwide on Fraser's wrongful termination claim but vacated and remand the state claims, and his bad-faith claim and forfeiture-for-competition claim for consideration in light of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision in Hess v. Gebhard and Co., Inc., 570 Pa. 148.


Leo Gustafson v Town of N. Castle 

45 A.D.3d 766
The employee, an assistant building inspector with the Town of North Castle, was charged and found guilty of falsifying official records with respect to where he was while on duty. The individual was assigned a town vehicle for the purpose of making field inspections in connection with his employment. The vehicle had a global positioning system installed that transmitted information to the town’s computer reporting the vehicle’s location and movements. Based on this information, the Town charged the employee with falsifying town records as to his whereabouts. This, said the Appellate Division, constituted substantial evidence to support the determination that the employee was guilty of falsifying town records.

Ghita v Department of Education of the City of New York 
2008 NY Slip Op 30706(U), Supreme Court, New York County, Docket Number: 0110481/2007 [Not selected for publications in the Official Reports] 
The employee challenged an arbitrator’s determination terminating his employment with the New York City Department of Education after finding him guilty of downloading a file of pornographic material from his AOL email account and openly viewed such pornographic material from a school computer. Supreme Court rejected the individual’s claim that the arbitrator exceeded his authority under Education Law §3020-a, and the award terminating petitioner's employment is a violation of public policy and New York State Law.

Perry v Comm. of Labor 

App. Div. 3rd Dept., 283 A.D.2d 754
An unemployment insurance claimant challenged a determination by the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board denying him benefits after finding that his employment was terminated due to his misconduct. The nature of the individual's alleged misconduct: his misuse of his employer's computer equipment. The employee, a human resource specialist, was dismissed from his position after his employer discovered that he used his computer terminal to frequently access pornographic websites during working hours.





Oct 1, 2016

School audits published issued by the New York State Comptroller during the week ending October 1, 2016


School audits published issued by the New York State Comptroller during the week ending October 1, 2016
Source: Office of the State Comptroller

[Internet links highlighted in color]


Adirondack Central School District– Financial Condition

Purpose of Audit
The purpose of our audit was to assess the District’s financial condition for the period July 1, 2014 through February 29, 2016.

Background
The Adirondack Central School District is located in the Towns of Ohio, Russia and Webb in Herkimer County; the Towns of Lewis, Leyden, Lyonsdale and West Turin in Lewis County; and the Towns of Annsville, Ava, Boonville, Forestport, Lee, Remsen, Steuben and Western in Oneida County. The District, which operates five schools with approximately 1,300 students, is governed by an elected seven-member Board of Education. Budgeted appropriations for the 2015-16 fiscal year totaled approximately $28.6 million.

Key Findings

In recent years, the Board has balanced its adopted budgets with appropriations of fund balance and reserves, which has led to planned operating deficits from 2012-13 through 2014-15 and a $2.2 million decline in the general fund balance.

The school lunch fund was not self-sufficient and required advances and subsidies from the general fund to finance its operations.

The Board has not developed a multiyear financial plan to address the declining fund balance and to guide the use of the reserve funds.

Key Recommendations

Carefully consider the amount of available fund balance and reserves appropriated to fund future budgets and ensure that a reasonable amount of unrestricted fund balance is retained.

Take the necessary steps to ensure that the school lunch fund becomes self-sufficient, such as increasing revenue or cutting costs.

Develop and periodically review a comprehensive multiyear financial plan to establish long-term objectives for funding long-term needs, provide a framework for future budgets and guide the District’s management of financial condition.

The text of the audit is posted on the Internet at:


Greenburgh Central School District– Payroll and Reserve Funds

Purpose of Audit
The purpose of our audit was to examine the District’s payroll procedures and reserve funds for the period July 1, 2014 through March 23, 2016.

Background
The Greenburgh Central School District is located in the Town of Greenburgh, Westchester County. The District, which operates six schools with approximately 2,000 students, is governed by an elected seven-member Board of Education. Budgeted appropriations for the 2015-16 fiscal year totaled approximately $65 million.

Key Findings

District officials have not provided employees with written procedures over payroll.

District officials did not adequately segregate payroll duties or establish sufficient compensating controls.

Overtime and leave requests were not preapproved as required.

There was no evidence that the Board periodically assessed four of the six reserves for necessity.

Key Recommendations

Develop written payroll-processing procedures for employees to follow.

Implement compensating controls to address the lack of segregation of duties in the payroll process.

Ensure that leave time is preapproved, that supporting documentation is retained and that overtime is preapproved.

Adopt a reserve fund policy that addresses the funding and use of all reserve funds.

The text of the audit is posted on the Internet at:


Greenville Central School District Information Technology

Purpose of Audit
The purpose of our audit was to evaluate the District’s internal controls over Information Technology for the period July 1, 2014 through January 14, 2016.

Background
The Greenville Central School District is located in the Town of Greenville in Greene County. The District, which operates two schools with approximately 1,200 students, is governed by an elected seven-member Board of Education. Budgeted appropriations for the 2015-16 fiscal year totaled approximately $28.7 million.

Key Findings

The District has not updated its acceptable use policy since September 2001.

The Board has not adopted a breach notification policy.

The District’s disaster recovery plan was not kept up to date, properly distributed or tested on a regular basis.

The District’s web filter permitted categories that did not appear to be for educational purposes.

Key Recommendations

Update the District’s acceptable use policy to include the use of personal devices on the

District’s network and acceptable use of District assets when used outside the District’s network.

Develop a policy for breach notification.

Ensure that the disaster recovery policy is periodically updated.

Adjust the web content filtering to ensure that staff and students are in compliance with the District’s acceptable use policy.

The text of the audit is posted on the Internet at:


LaFargeville Central School District– Financial Condition

Purpose of Audit
The purpose of our audit was to assess the District`s financial condition for the period July 1, 2014 through April 30, 2016.

Background
The LaFargeville Central School District is located in the Towns of Alexandria, Clayton, Le Ray, Orleans, Pamelia and Theresa in Jefferson County. The District, which operates one school with approximately 560 students, is governed by an elected five-member Board of Education. Budgeted appropriations for the 2015-16 fiscal year totaled approximately $11 million.

Key Findings

The Board and District officials overestimated appropriations when developing budgets for the three fiscal years 2012-13 through 2014-15.

District officials appropriated about $1 million of fund balance in each of the past three
fiscal years but the District experienced operating surpluses each year that averaged about $225,000 annually, and as a result, the District did not use any of the appropriated fund balance.

The Business Manager has developed a long-term planning model used when preparing the District’s annual budget but the Board has not officially adopted this or any other multiyear plan to address the District’s use of its excess fund balance.

Key Recommendations

Adopt budgets that represent the District’s actual needs, based on current information and historical data.

Discontinue the practice of adopting budgets that result in the appropriation of fund balance that will not be used.

Formulate a long-term multiyear capital and operational plan that addresses the use of excess unrestricted fund balance in the general fund in a manner that benefits District residents.

The text of the audit is posted on the Internet at:



Sep 30, 2016

The conduct of a municipality or government entity may serve to ratify the terms and conditions of an agreement not approved as provided by law


The conduct of a municipality or government entity may serve to ratify the terms and conditions of an agreement not approved as provided by law
Prudenti v County of Suffolk, Appellate Division, 2016 NY Slip Op 06203

On September 20, 2011, the then Suffolk County Executive entered into a Memorandum of Agreement [MOA] with the Suffolk County Deputy Sheriffs Police Benevolent Association [DSPBA] pursuant to which DSPBA agreed to defer the payment of approximately $4 million in retroactive pay increases its members that had been awarded to DSPBA members by an arbitration panel for the period January 2008 through December 2010 until December 2015. In exchange, Suffolk County agreed not to transfer any of the DSPBA members' official duties to other law enforcement officers through December 2017. Suffolk and DSPBA also agreed that any disputes concerning the interpretation and, or, implementation of any provision of the MOA could be submitted to arbitration.

Notwithstanding the “no transfer” provision in the MOA, in September 2012, the successor County Executive and the County entered into an agreement with the Suffolk County Police Benevolent Association [PBA] that provided that the County would transfer certain highway patrol and enforcement work previously assigned to DSPBA members to PBA members.

DSPBA filed a demand for arbitration and subsequently commenced a CPLR Article 75 action seeking a preliminary injunction prohibiting Suffolk County from transferring the highway patrol and enforcement work to members of the PBA pending resolution of the arbitration proceeding and, in addition, for a judgment declaring that the MOA is valid and enforceable.

Suffolk County cross-moved to permanently stay the arbitration proceeding contending [1] that no valid agreement to arbitrate the MOA had been made and [2] that the wage deferral provisions of the MOA were invalid because they called for an additional appropriation of funds that had not been approved by the County Legislature.* The Suffolk County Superior Officers Association [SOA] and PBA joined in the motions to stay the arbitration and to dismiss DSPBA’s complaint.

Supreme Court held that the MOA entered into by the former Suffolk County Executive and the DSPBA was valid and enforceable and rejected motions pursuant to CPLR 7503(b) by Suffolk, the PBA, and the SOA to permanently stay arbitration. The court also directed Suffolk County and DSPBA to proceed to arbitration. Suffolk County, PBA and SOA appealed.

The Appellate Division first ruled that, contrary to the contentions of Suffolk County, the PBA, and the SOA, Supreme Court's declaration upholding the validity of the MOA was procedurally proper.

Addressing the merits of the action, the Appellate Division held that Supreme Court correctly determined that the MOA was valid and enforceable as matter of law, regardless of whether the wage deferral provisions required legislative approval pursuant to Civil Service Law §204-a(1), because the County Legislature had ratified those provisions by its conduct.

The court explained that a contract that is not approved by the relevant municipal or governmental body as required by law, rule, or regulation may be ratified by the municipality or government body by its subsequent conduct. In this instance, said the Appellate Division, it was demonstrated “prima facie” that the County Legislature “accepted the benefits of the MOA and partially performed thereunder with knowledge of its terms in a manner clearly referable to the agreement.”

As the County, the SOA, and the PBA failed to raise a triable issue of fact, the Appellate Division said the Supreme Court properly concluded that the County Legislature had ratified the MOA.

* Civil Service Law §204-a.1 requires that “Any written agreement between a public employer and an employee organization determining the terms and conditions of employment of public employees shall contain the following notice in type not smaller than the largest type used elsewhere in such agreement: "It is agreed by and between the parties that any provision of this agreement requiring legislative action to permit its implementation by amendment of law or by providing the additional funds therefor, shall not become effective until the appropriate legislative body has given approval."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

Sep 29, 2016

Rescinding an offer of employment after employee failed to complete necessary routine paperwork does not constitute “unlawful retaliation”


Rescinding an offer of employment after employee failed to complete necessary routine paperwork does not constitute “unlawful retaliation”
Ruderman v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 06148, Appellate Division, First Department

An order of Supreme Court granting the motion of the City of New Yorkto dismiss Irving Ruderman complaint alleging “retaliation” was unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division, which noted that although the Supreme Court’s order did not expressly address Ruderman’s retaliation claim, it unambiguously granted New York City’s motion to dismiss in its entirety.

In order to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, the individual is required to show that:

(1) he or she had engaged in protected activity,

(2) his or her employer was aware that he or she participated in such activity,

(3) he or she suffered an adverse employment action based upon his or her activity, and

(4) there is "a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse [personnel] action" alleged to have suffered by the individual.

The Appellate Division explained Ruderman’s retaliation claims brought pursuant to Federal and State Civil Rights Law and under the New York City Human Rights Law was properly dismissed by Supreme Court because Ruderman's complaint failed to provide a basis for a reasonable jury to conclude that the job offer that was extended to him was rescinded because of his inquiry he had sent to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC].

The court noted that there was no dispute that the job offer made to Ruderman was re-confirmed “even after City of New York employees were aware of the inquiry” Ruderman had submitted to EEOC.

Nor, said the Appellate Division, was there any dispute that Ruderman failed to complete the required routine paperwork related to his employment. Indeed, said the court, Ruderman was advised that his failure to complete this paperwork might result in his not being appointed to the position that was offered. Notwithstanding this warning, Ruderman did not complete the paperwork.

With respect to Ruderman's allegations of unlawful retaliation, the Appellate Division ruled that he failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate any causal connection between his not being appointed to the position and his having made an “EEOC inquiry.” 

In addition, said the court, the reason given by the City for rescinding its job offer -- Ruderman's failure to complete the required paperwork -- did not constitute a pretext for unlawful retaliation in violation of the relevant Federal, State or City discrimination laws.

As the United States Court of Appeals for the 5thCircuit held in Wallace v Methodist Hospital System, 271 F.3d 212, where the employer has presented a lawful reason to rebut an individual’s prima facie evidence of unlawful discrimination, the burden shifts to the charging party to “present facts to rebut each and every legitimate non-discriminatory reason advanced by [the employer] in order to survive [a motion for] summary judgment” submitted to the court by the employer. Implicit in this ruling: if but one of the explanations offered by an employer in defending itself against allegations of unlawful discrimination survives, the employer will prevail.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:


Sep 28, 2016

Penalty of termination to “jolt” the employee to understand of the seriousness of his misconduct remanded for the imposition of a lesser penalty


Penalty of termination to “jolt” the employee to understand of the seriousness of his misconduct remanded for the imposition of a lesser penalty
2016 NY Slip Op 06184, Appellate Division, First Department

The Appellate Division reversed, on the law, Supreme Court’s denial of an CPLR Article 75 petition filed by a teacher seeking an order vacating that part of an arbitration award that terminated his employment as a tenured teacher. The matter was then remanded to the appointing authority for the imposition of a lesser penalty.

The evidence presented at the disciplinary arbitration hearing established that the teacher, an eighth-grade physical education teacher, had initiated conversations with at least two of his female students asking them "if they had older sisters, and, if so, how old they were, whether they had boyfriends, and whether they had photographs of them" and accepted the phone number of one student's 23 year-old sister.

One student had testified that the teacher’s conduct made her feel "uncomfortable," and another said that his conduct "aggravated" her.

Of the 12 specifications filed against the teacher, the Hearing Officer dismissed five. Finding the teacher guilty of the seven remaining specifications, including an allegation that he had engaged in similar behavior in a previous school year, the hearing officer said that he had found the teacher “to be insufficiently remorseful, that his actions revealed ‘moral failings,’ and that, although termination might be ‘too severe,’ it was the only penalty that could ‘jolt’ [the teacher] into an understanding of the seriousness of his misconduct.”

In view of “all the circumstances of the case, including the lack of any prior allegations of misconduct [filed] against the teacher during 13 years of service and the fact that the misconduct does not violate any specific rule or regulation,” the Appellate Division said that it found the penalty imposed, termination, sufficiently “disproportionate to the offenses to shock the conscience” of the court.

Further, said the court, the teacher had never been warned or reprimanded regarding the conduct at issue, and, contrary to the conclusion of the Hearing Officer, “there is no evidence that a warning or reprimand or other penalty short of termination would not have caused [the teacher] to cease the objectionable conduct immediately.”

The Appellate Division panel adjudicating this appeal, Justice Tom dissenting, said although it shared some of Justice Tom’s concern regarding the teacher’s behavior and his failure to express any deeper understanding of the inappropriate nature of his actions, it did not agree that the law supports imposing the penalty of termination “at this time.”

The court noted that the Hearing Officer found only that the teacher had made "inappropriate inquiries of his 8th grade female students regarding their female relatives, in furtherance of a personal agenda having nothing to do with school or his responsibilities as a teacher." Further, said the majority, the Hearing Officer did not find that the teacher actually intended to, or did, have any “romantic/sexual interactions” with anyone nor was there any evidence that the teacher “had made any sexual comments to his students.”

In the words of the majority, the teacher “showed very poor judgment, but he has not been shown to have violated any law, or even any rule or regulation of the Department of Education,” explaining that its decision does not excuse the teacher’s behavior but merely directs imposing “a less serious punishment.”

However, warned the majority, should such behavior continue, termination of the teacher “may well be in order in the future.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

______________

A Reasonable Penalty Under The Circumstances - a 618-page volume focusing on New York State court and administrative decisions addressing an appropriate disciplinary penalty to be imposed on an employee in the public service found guilty of misconduct or incompetence. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/7401.html

______________


Sep 27, 2016

Determining the appropriate procedure to be followed when filing disciplinary charges against a police officer of a town


Determining the appropriate procedure go be followed when filing disciplinary charges against a police officer of a town
Town of Goshen v Town of Goshen Police Benevolent Assn., 2016 NY Slip Op 06090, Appellate Division, Second Department

§155 of the Town Law provides that charges brought against members of a police department that are subject to procedures prescribed by a town board "shall not be brought more than sixty days after the time when the facts upon which such charges are based are known to the town board."

Subject to certain exceptions not here relevant, §75.4 of the Civil Service Law provides that disciplinary charges brought against an employee must be brought within 18-month of the occurrence of the alleged act or acts of incompetence or misconduct.

A Town of Goshen police officer was served with disciplinary charges pursuant to Local Law No. 1 of 2013 of the Town of Goshen. Local Law No. 1 had been enacted by the Town Board pursuant to the authority granted to it by Town Law §155.  

Significantly, the record established "that the disciplinary proceeding was untimely commenced more than 60 days after the Town Board learned the facts upon which the disciplinary charges were based."

Town of Goshen Police Benevolent Association [PBA] brought a hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 75 seeking a court order declaring that the disciplinary charges against the police officer were time-barred as they were brought pursuant to Town Law §155 more than 60 after the alleged acts of misconduct were know to the Board.

The Town, on the other hand, contended that the disciplinary action had timely served within the  longer 18-month statute of limitations prescribed by Civil Service Law §75.4 “incorporated in the collective bargaining agreement” between the Town and the PBA.* The Town argued that the contract procedure controlled and the disciplinary charges had been timely served on the police officer as authorized by §75.4 of the Civil Service Law.

Supreme Court** agreed with the PBA that the disciplinary charges filed against the police officer were untimely as the statute of limitations set out in the Town Law rather than the Civil Service Law controlled and granted the PBA’s petition.

The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's ruling, explaining that contrary to the Town’s claim that the statute of limitations set by §75.4 controlled, by enacting Local Law No. 1 the Town Board "affirmed that the subject of police discipline resides with it" and as a result "discipline" was a prohibited subject of collective bargaining between the Town and the PBA. In other words, the provisions dealing with disciplinary action set out in the collective bargaining agreement negotiated pursuant to the Taylor Law were a nullity.

In Town of Wallkill v CSEA, Town of Wallkill Police Department, 19 NY3d 1066, the Court of Appeals said that the discipline of police officers "may not be a subject of collective bargaining under the Taylor Law when the Legislature has expressly committed disciplinary authority over a police department to local officials." Accordingly, the Town of Wallkill's local law made police discipline subject to the Board's procedures and the mandates of Town Law §155 rather than the disciplinary procedures set out in a collective bargaining with respect to initiating and prosecuting a disciplinary action against a Town of Wallkill police officer.

* §76 of the Civil Service Law provides that §§75 and 76 of such law “may be supplemented,  modified or replaced by agreements negotiated between the state  and  an   employee  organization  pursuant  to  Article  14 of this chapter.”

** A summary of the Supreme Court’s decision is posted on the Internet at: http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2013/11/town-adopts-local-law-replacing.html

The Appellate Division’s decision is posted on the Internet at:

______________
The Discipline Book - A 458 page guide to disciplinary actions involving public officers and employees. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/books/5215.html
______________

Sep 26, 2016

In considering a motion to dismiss, the court is to give allegations in the complaint a liberal construction and consider facts alleged in the complaint true


In considering a motion to dismiss, the court is to give allegations in the complaint a liberal construction and consider facts alleged in the complaint true
Kaplan v New York City Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene, 2016 NY Slip Op 06063, Appellate Division, Second Department

Constance Kaplan was serving with the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene [HMH] as a temporary worker. She alleged that after notifying HMH that she had been sexually harassed by her supervisor during a training session and intended to sue under the relevant human rights laws she was terminated from her position. She also alleged that her dismissal constituted reprisal for taking action to seek redress for the supervisor’s alleged sexual harassment.

Supreme Court granted HMH’s motion to dismiss Kaplan's petition alleging sexual harassment pursuant to New York City’s Human Rights Law “for failing to state a cause of action." The court granted HLMH's motion after determining that Kaplan's failed to show that the behavior of her supervisor "constituted more than a petty slight or trivial inconvenience"

The Appellate Division disagreed with Supreme Court’s ruling and said that the lower court should have given Kaplan’s complaint a liberal construction and accepted all facts alleged in the complaint to be true. Further, said the court, a contention that the behavior being complained of “was a petty slight or trivial inconvenience” constituted an affirmative defense, which should be raised in HMH’s answer, and did not lend itself to a pre-answer motion to dismiss. 

A motion to dismiss, said the Appellate Division, “merely addresses the adequacy of the pleading, and does not reach the substantive merits of a party's cause of action.”

The Appellate Division also found that Supreme Court erred in dismissing Kaplan’s cause of action alleging retaliation within the meaning of both the State’s and the City’s human rights laws. 

Kaplan had alleged in her complaint that her employment was terminated approximately two weeks after she informed HMH of her claims of sexual harassment and advised it of her intent to sue. Viewed in the light most favorable to Kaplan, the Appellate Division concluded that these allegations stated a cause of action alleging retaliation within the meaning of the State’s Human Rights Law and New York City’s Human Rights Law, the latter being "more liberal that its state counterpart.”

HMH had also submitted several emails in support of its motion to dismiss which it contended established that Kaplan was not discharged from her employment. 

The Appellate Division said that the emails submitted by HMH did not establish that Kaplan’s allegation that she was discharged from her employment “is not a fact.” Again the Appellate Division found that “Supreme Court erred in determining that emails from [Kaplan] and her temporary employment agency constituted party admissions and were admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule,” as the emails HMH relied upon were not inconsistent with Kaplan’s position that she was terminated from her employment.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

Sep 24, 2016

LawBlogs with a New York State focus


LawBlogs with a New York State focus
Source: Justia Practice Areas

Justia reports on 6,536 Blawgs in 74 subcategories of which there are 303 New York State LawBlogs listed.

The most popular NYS LawBlog "for all time" was “Real Estate Law Blog,” rank number 11 the 6.536 LawBlogs Justia follows.. It’s current postings are listed at: http://www.nyrealestatelawblog.com/
    You may check out all the current NYS LawBlog listings on Justia “for all time” at


    and quickly sign-up to “subscribe” to any LawBlogs of interest via a daily “feed” to receive postings on a continuing basis using the link provided for each LawBlog.

    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