Decisions by OATH Administrative Law Judges

Decisions by OATH Administrative Law Judges

New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings 

Firefighter admitted using cocaine

Penalty recommended: termination and forfeiture of the vesting his pension recommended

A firefighter who tested positive for cocaine admitted to using the drug but argued that he should be permitted to vest his pension and retire when eligible to do so.

Administrative Law Judge Alessandra F. Zorgniotti noted that pursuant to the Department’s “zero tolerance policy,” termination of employment is the usual penalty for a first time positive test, in the absence of exacerbating or extenuating circumstances.

Judge Zorgniotti found that respondent failed to present sufficient evidence in mitigation to justify a lesser penalty and recommended termination of the individual’s employment, without an allowance that his pension be permitted to vest fully.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

Fire Dep’t v. Arcello (in PDF), OATH Index No. 109/13 

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli to classify financial condition of local governments to identify local governments experiencing financial strain

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli to classify financial condition of local governments to identify local governments experiencing financial strain

On January 28, 2013, State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced that his office has finalized plans to implement a statewide fiscal monitoring system that would publicly identify local governments experiencing financial strain. The monitoring system will include nine financial indicators, such as cash-on-hand and patterns of operating deficits, together with broader demographic information like population trends and tax assessment growth. The system will start by analyzing those localities whose fiscal year ended December 31, 2012 and later apply it to villages and school districts whose fiscal years end at various periods throughout the year.

DiNapoli’s office drafted the ‘early warning’ monitoring system in September 2012 and shared details of the proposal with all of the state’s local governments and school districts for their review during a 60-day comment period. More than 85 local government and school district officials, as well as a number of affiliated organizations, submitted comments.

Using data already submitted by more than 3,000 local governments, DiNapoli’s office will calculate and publicize an overall score of fiscal stress for approximately 2,300 municipalities and school district across the state. They will be listed as in “significant fiscal stress,” in “moderate fiscal stress,” “susceptible to fiscal stress,” or “not in fiscal stress.”

Once the monitoring system has identified local governments and school districts experiencing fiscal stress, an array of services will be offered by DiNapoli’s office including budget reviews, technical financial assistance, guidance on multi-year financial planning, financial management publications and training.

Additional information concerning the Comptroller’s fiscal stress monitoring system is posted on the Internet at: www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/fiscalmonitoring/index.htm

Retirement to avoid disciplinary action

Retirement to avoid disciplinary action

A Los Angeles Unified School District teacher arrested and accused of sexually abusing students retired from his position before administrative disciplinary action had been initiated by the school district. School District Superintendent John Deasy, when asked what action the school district planned to take responded “Can you go back and fire someone who’s already retired?”*

An appointing authority of a New York State or political subdivision of the State is able do just that insofar as certain employees are concerned.

For example, 4 NYCRR 5.3(b), which applies to employees in the classified service of the State and public authorities, public benefit corporations and other agencies for which the Civil Service Law is administered by the State Department of Civil Service, provides, in pertinent part, provides that, Resignation, provides: that  “… when charges of incompetency or misconduct have been or are about to be filed against an employee, the appointing authority may elect to disregard a resignation filed by such employee and to prosecute such charges and, in the event that such employee is found guilty of such charges and dismissed from the service, his termination shall be recorded as a dismissal rather than as a resignation."** Many local civil service commissions have adopted a similar rule.

Presumably the appointing authority could elect to disregard a “retirement” under similar circumstances.***

In the case of an individual serving in a position in the classified service not otherwise entitled to a pre-termination disciplinary hearing pursuant to law or a collective bargaining agreement, the appointing authority presumably could elect to disregard the resignation, schedule a disciplinary hearing in the exercise of its discretion and in the event the individual is found guilty of the charge[s], record the separation as a “termination for cause” rather than as a resignation.

Undertaking such a disciplinary action could be significant with respect to employment in the public service in the future as application forms for employment or examination with the State or a political subdivision of the State typically  include the following questions.

1. Were you ever discharged from any employment except for lack of work, disability or medical condition?  [ ] yes  [ ] no  

2. Did you ever resign from any employment rather than face discharge? [ ] yes  [ ] no 

Failing to answer these questions correctly could result in the applicant being disqualified for such employment pursuant to §50.4(e), and, or (f) and, or (g) of the Civil Service Law by the responsible Civil Service Commission or Personnel Officer.

Many local civil service commissions and personnel officers have promulgated rules similar to 4 NYCRR 5.3(b).

*  See Los Angeles Times article on the Internet at:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/01/teacher-molestation-principal-ignored-allegation.html

** State Education Law §1133.1 provides that “[a] school administrator or superintendent shall not make any agreement to withhold from law enforcement authorities, the superintendent or the commissioner, where appropriate, the fact that an allegation of child abuse in an educational setting on the part of any employee or volunteer as required by [Article 23-B of the Education Law] in return for the resignation or voluntary suspension from his or her position of such person, against whom the allegation is made.

*** See Mari v. Safir, 291 AD2d 298, leave to appeal denied, 98 NY2d 61