Arranging trips for “senior citizens” living in the jurisdiction

Arranging trips for “senior citizens” living in the jurisdiction

Informal Opinions of the Attorney General 87-18

A number of New York State towns and villages have a senior citizen division that organize or provide various recreational opportunities for their senior residents. Such activities may include offering day trips to nearby locations and multi-day trips to more distant places.

In response to an inquiry from a municipality that wished to use the services of a travel agency in making arrangements for such trips, the Attorney General concluded that “a prohibited conflict of interest exists” should a municipal employee “charged with arranging tourist travel" on behalf of the jurisdiction senior citizen "accepts a free trip from the travel agency that sponsor the trip.”

The Attorney General explained that “When one of the travel agencies sponsoring these trips offers a free trip to the leader, we believe that an appearance of impropriety results.”

In addition to the possibility of a “common law conflict of interest” that may be operative in this instance, the Attorney General noted that “acceptance of the free trip by the leader would probably violate Section 805-a of the General Municipal Law.”

.

Resolution of an impasse in collective bargaining may be referred to a financial restructuring board in lieu of referral to existing interest arbitration panel

Resolution of an impasse in collective bargaining may be referred to a financial restructuring board in lieu of referral to existing interest arbitration panel

Chapter 67 of the Laws of 2013

Chapter 67 of the Laws of 2013 amended the State Finance Law, the Local Finance Law and the Civil Service Law with respect to financial restructuring boards for local governments. In particular, the Chapter amends §209 of the Civil Service Law in relation to public arbitration panels determinations by adding a new subdivision 4-a and a new subdivision 6-a.

Karlee S. Bolaños, Esq., has addressed the impact of this legislation in the event a distressed municipality and union at impasse “jointly request” a financial restructuring board to resolve an impasse in collective bargaining in lieu referring the impasse to existing interest arbitration panels. 

The following are among the several issues considered by Ms. Bolaños in her article:

1. What are Financial Restructuring Boards and who will be members?

2. What is the role of the Financial Restructuring Board?

3. What is a fiscally eligible municipality?

4. How does interest arbitration come into play? and

5. To which agreements will the law apply?

Ms. Bolaños’ analysis and comments are posted on NYMuniBlog, a LawBlog maintained by the law firm of Harris Beach, PLLC as a public service at: http://nymuniblog.com/?p=3488

The Financial Restructuring Board for Local Government's web site is at:
http://www.frb.ny.gov/
.
.
. 

Falsification of time records results in suspension without pay

Falsification of time records results in suspension without pay

Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision 11682

Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision 11111

Decision 11682

A teacher charged 11 days of absence over a 3 1/2 month period to her sick leave accruals. The District subsequently learned that the teacher had reported for work at her second job or had attended scheduled classes in an evening course in which she was enrolled on the same days that she had been absent on sick leave.

The District filed disciplinary charges against the teacher pursuant to Education Law §3020-a. The disciplinary hearing panel found the teacher guilty of all but one of the specifications, ruling that her actions constituted conduct unbecoming a teacher and neglect of duty. It imposed a penalty of suspension without pay for three months .

The District appealed, seeking approval to dismiss the teacher. The teacher, on the other hand, asked the Commissioner to vacate the panel's decision and dismiss the charges filed against her.

The Commissioner, sustaining the panel's decision, ruled that the penalty imposed by the panel for the teacher’s abuse of sick leave was, in this case, appropriate and affirmed the penalty imposed by the §3020-a disciplinary panel. 

Decision 11111

 In another Education Law §3020-a disciplinary action involving an alleged falsification of time records, the Commissioner upheld the disciplinary hearing panel's finding the teacher guilty of the charges filed against her alleging that she had misuse of family sick leave benefits. The Commissioner also upheld the disciplinary penalty imposed by the panel: -- a suspension without pay for 9 1/2 months for "abuse of sick leave benefits."

The disciplinary hearing panel had found that the teacher had absented herself from work, charging her absence to her sick leave credits for an alleged “family illness” for three days immediately preceding the School District’s spring recess. The teacher, however, chanced to meet her principal at a vacation site that they both were visiting on one of the days she had charged to her “family sick leave” leave credits. 
.
.

Extending the statute of limitations for bring a disciplinary action pursuant to Civil Service Law §75

Extending the statute of limitations for bring a disciplinary action pursuant to Civil Service Law §75

OATH Index No 1889/13

§75 of the Civil Service Law provides that disciplinary charges must be served on the accused individual no later than eighteen months after the occurrence of the alleged incompetency or misconduct complained of and described in the charges or, in the case of a state employee who is designated managerial or confidential within the meaning of Article 14 [The Taylor Law] of the Civil Service Law, more than one year after the occurrence of the alleged incompetency or misconduct. However, such limitations do not apply where the alleged acts of incompetency or misconduct would, if proved in a court of appropriate jurisdiction, constitute a crime.*

An employee charged with a number of alleged acts or omissions claimed to constitute misconduct pursuant to Civil Service Law §75 asked Administrative Law Judge Tynia D. Richards to “dismiss these ‘5-year-old charges’ as untimely”

The appointing authority thereupon amended the charges to include an allegation of the crime of “official misconduct” and contended that the alleged underlying charges were entitled to the “crimes” exception to the limitations period. 

Penal Law §195.00 defines the crime of official misconduct as follows: A public servant is guilty of official misconduct when, with intent to obtain a benefit or to deprive another person of a benefit:

1. He or she commits an act relating to [his or her] office but constituting an unauthorized exercise of [his or her] official functions, knowing that such act is unauthorized; or

2. He or she knowingly refrains from performing a duty that is imposed upon [him or her] by law or is clearly inherent in the nature of [his or her] office.

Citing People v. Esposito, 160 A.D.2d 378, Judge Richard said that to prove official misconduct, it must be demonstrated that the public servant so charged has acted with the intent to obtain a benefit for himself or another.”

The ALJ granted the employee’s motion to dismiss the disciplinary charges in their entirety, ruling that the charges alleged were inadequate to establish all elements of the crime, in particular, the employee’s intent to gain a benefit.

* N. B. An alternative “disciplinary procedure” negotiated in accordance with §76 of the Civil Service Law may set a different statute of limitations for initiating disciplinary action against an employee.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://archive.citylaw.org/oath/13_Cases/13-1889.pdf
.

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

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

Click on text highlighted in bold to access the full report. 

Audits of school districts release by the State Comptroller during the week ending September 7, 2013:

the Hendrick Hudson Central School District,

the Oneonta City School District, and

the Ticonderoga Central School District.

The Comptroller also released completed audits of the following State departments and agencies:

the Department of Health, Medicaid Program;

the New York Energy Research and Development Authority;

the Office of Children and Family Services, Adoption Subsidy Program;

the State Education Department and the Office of Children and Family Services, Educators for Children, Youth and Families, Inc.; and,

the Metropolitan Transportation Authority