Amendment to New York State’s Constitution regarding additional veteran credits available to disabled veterans

Amendment to New York State’s Constitution regarding additional veteran credits available to disabled veterans

New York State Constitution, Article 5, §6

Scott DeFruscio, Assistant Director of Staffing Services, New York State Department of Civil Service, has distributed a General Information Bulletin to New York State departments and agencies addressing a recent amendment to the State's Constitution providing certain benefit to disabled veterans. The amendment takes effect January 1, 2014.

Click on text highlighted in color toaccess additional information and forms.

The Bulletin is set out below:

GENERAL INFORMATION BULLETIN No. 13-01

TO: Department and Agency Directors of Human Resource, Personnel and Affirmative Action Officers

FROM: Scott DeFruscio, Assistant Director of Staffing Services

SUBJECT: Amendment to the New York State Constitution re Eligibility for Disabled Veteran Credits on New York State Examinations

DATE: December 26, 2013

Article 5, Section 6, of the New York State Constitution was amended to entitle veterans who have used veteran credits for a Civil Service appointment or promotion and who were/are subsequently certified as being a disabled veteran by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, to additional credits for a subsequent appointment or promotion.

This Constitutional amendment, which is effective January 1, 2014, provides additional veteran credits to a veteran who:

1. Used non-disabled veteran credits to obtain a civil service appointment or promotion with New York State or a local government, and,

2. Subsequent to such appointment is determined by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs to be a qualified disabled veteran, as defined in the New York State Civil Service Law.

Such candidate is entitled to 10 additional credits on civil service examinations, minus the number of credits already used for the prior appointment.

Eligible lists established on or after January 1, 2014 will include the additional disabled veteran credits in the scores of candidates who meet the above two conditions and provide the necessary documentation to establish eligibility to the Department of Civil Service (DCS) or other state agency establishing a decentralized eligible list.

DCS is taking steps to revise both the online and paper NYS-APP to provide candidates the ability to claim these additional credits. This will require modifying current systems to automate the capture and processing of veteran credit eligibility information. We are working as expeditiously as possible on these modifications.

In the meantime, DCS has established the following process to notify potentially eligible candidates and provide them a means to claim the additional veteran credits:

1. All candidates for examinations for which eligible lists will be established on or after January 1, 2014 will receive notification (attached) of the Constitutional amendment and its effect. The notice will provide the candidate with eligibility information and direct the candidate to this website: www.cs.ny.gov/vetcredits. On the website the candidate will answer questions to assist in determining eligibility and will be able to submit a claim for the additional disabled veteran credits.

2. The candidates will have approximately 10 days from receipt of the notice to submit the required information. Candidates may not claim the credits after an eligible list has been established.

3. DCS will add the additional credits to scores of candidates who submit a claim and will send these candidates two forms, T-252 and T-252A The candidate will use these forms to request required eligibility verification information from the U. S. Department of Veterans Affairs and the candidate’s previous public sector employer. These forms must be returned to DCS and will be used to verify eligibility for the use of the claimed credit at the time of appointment along with the S-203 Disposition of Veterans Credits documentation. Any candidate who claimed additional disabled veteran credits and has either not provided this Department with needed verification documentation in a timely manner, or who is found to be ineligible, will have the claimed credits removed and their score on the eligible list revised accordingly.

Additional information regarding the affects of the Constitutional amendment, including frequently asked questions, can be found on our website, www.cs.ny.gov/vetcredits.

Decentralized Examinations

Once the DCS revisions of the online and paper NYS-APP are finalized, any special applications for decentralized examinations must be revised in a similar manner. Until such time, agencies must not establish any eligible lists nor add eligibles to continuous recruitment eligible lists resulting from decentralized examinations without first notifying candidates of the ability to claim additional disabled veteran credits, as provided by the Constitutional Amendment. Agency personnel who establish and maintain eligible lists should be informed accordingly. Agencies that administer decentralized examinations should adopt procedures similar to those described above to accept and verify claims for additional disabled veteran credits. The notification to candidates used by DCS may be modified for agency use. The additional veteran credits may only be added to a candidate’s score prior to list establishment. The scores of current list eligibles may not be changed.

Questions may be directed to your Staffing Services Representative.

.

Misconduct in another jurisdiction may be a basis for disciplinary action in New York State

Misconduct in another jurisdiction may be a basis for disciplinary action in New York State

Bueno v. Ambach, 82 A.D.2d 935, Appeal Dismissed, 54 N.Y.2d 1024

The Appellate Division concluded that the Commissioner of Education properly revoked a physician’s license to practice medicine in New York State on the basis of his record in other jurisdictions.

Holding that “it is clear that misconduct in other jurisdictions can be the basis for a disciplinary action in New York...and also that the transcripts of the hearings were properly...in evidence,” the Appellate Division  dismissed Bueno’s appeal.
.

A tribunal’s lack of jurisdiction to render a judgment or determination may be asserted at any time

A tribunal’s lack of jurisdiction to render a judgment or determination may be asserted at any time
2013 NY Slip Op 08481, Appellate Division, Third Department

In 1994 a New York City employee filed a Workers’ Compensation claim alleging that she had sustained a work-related injury.. The claim was controverted by the employer, who was “self-insured,” and in 1995 the employee's claim was marked closed due to a lack of prima facie medical evidence.

In 2011 the individual submitted a medical report documenting her injury. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the claim in a June 2011 decision, finding that the employer waived its defenses by failing to appear at a Workers' Compensation hearing. The Board found the employer's application for review of hearing officer's the decision untimely and the employer appealed its ruling.

The employer, conceding that its application for review was untimely, nevertheless contended that the Workers’ Compensation Board’s refusal to consider its claim that the Board lacked jurisdiction to reopen the matter pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law §123* constituted an abuse of discretion.”

The Appellate Division agreed, citing Doey v Howland Co., 224 NY 30. The court explained that "The general rule is that lack of jurisdiction to render a judgment or determination may be asserted at any time …" Although the Board has broad discretion to reject a late application for review, the court ruled that its refusal to consider an untimely challenge to its jurisdiction may constitute an abuse of discretion.

Given the age of the claim and the fact that it was marked closed in 1995, the Appellate Division said that the “employer plausibly argues that the Board lacked jurisdiction to reopen the present claim.” Thus the Board abused its discretion in refusing to consider the employer's admitted untimely application for review with respect to the Board’s jurisdiction under these circumstances.

The Appellate Division remanded the matter to the Board in order for it to “address the merits of [the employer's] application and determine if the [individual's] claim had been truly closed in 1995.”

* Workers' Compensation Law §123 provides for the continuing jurisdiction of the Board under certain circumstances.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_08481.htm


 
.

Selected reports and information published by New York State's Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli during the week ending December 21, 2013

Selected reports and information published by New York State's Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli during the week ending December 21, 2013

Click on text highlighted in color  to access the full report

Comptroller DiNapoli Releases School Audits

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli on December 18, 2013 announced his office completed audits of

the New Suffolk Common School District,

the Quogue Union Free School District and

the Schoharie Central School District.

Comptroller DiNapoli Releases Municipal Audits

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli on December 18, 2013 announced his office completed audits of

County Reimbursement for Social Services Costs,

the Town of Dannemora, Village of Deposit and

the Kiantone Fire Department.

DiNapoli Announces Public Can Search State Payments on www.openbooknewyork.com

State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli Tuesday announced that state payments to vendors, municipalities, school districts and others are now available at Open Book New York (www.openbooknewyork.com), a transparency website launched by DiNapoli in 2008. Data is updated daily to include approximately 10,000 new payments the Comptroller’s office processes each business day.

DiNapoli: State Public Authority Pay & Employee Perks Overs $7 Billion

New York’s state public authorities pay more than $7 billion in compensation and perks to more than 104,000 employees annually, with nearly $1.8 billion going to employees who earn $100,000 or more, according to a reportreleased Wednesday by State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli.
.

Video tape exonerates employee accused of vandalism of employer’s property

Video tape exonerates employee accused of vandalism of employer’s property

OATH Index No.1572/13

Tapes created by surveillance video cameras have been used as evidence against employees in disciplinary procedures.

In this disciplinary action, a videotape introduced by the employee in his defense persuaded the hearing officer that the department had not proven the disciplinary charges filed against him.

A New York City a sanitation worker was served with disciplinary charges alleging that he had vandalized a garbage truck parked in a Department garage. The New York City Department of Sanitation attempted to prove these charges by introducing evidence that alleged that the employee vandalized a Department truck at about 3:15 a.m.

The evidence relied upon by the Department consisted of the testimony of two investigators who were watching a Department parking lot at night from the rooftop of an adjacent building and who had made a video recording of the lot from their observation point.

OATH Administrative Law Judge Kevin F. Casey found that the sound of broken glass could be heard on the video made by the investigators but no one was visible on the tape because it was too dark.

The employee denied that he had vandalized the Department’s equipment and introduced into evidence a video surveillance camera tape taken at a nearby 7-Eleven store and “[a]ccording to the time stamp on the recording, the [employee] entered the 7-Eleven at 3:12 a.m. and he left at 3:22 a.m., after using the restroom and purchasing food and coffee.”

Finding that the Department failed to rebut employee’s alibi evidence, including the video tape showing that he was at a 7-Eleven at the alleged time of the incident, OATH Administrative Law Judge recommended that the disciplinary charges filed against the employee be dismissed.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://archive.citylaw.org/oath/98_Cases/13-1572.pdf
.
.