Information for individual considering retirement available at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website

Information for individual considering retirement available at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website

Source: United States Securities and Exchange Commission

The United States Securities and Exchange Commission has posted a number of aids to assist individuals interested in planning for retirement on the Internet.

Click on http://www.investor.gov/tools#.Ur2cq_uab-Iaccess the information and the various tools provided by the Commission that it believes will assist an individual in evaluating his or her financial situation. Commission observes that “Once you know your current financial situation, you'll be in a better position to plan for the future.”

Listed below are some of the tools provided by the Commission:

401(k) and IRA Required Minimum Distribution Calculator: After age 70½, you are generally required to start withdrawing money from your IRAs and 401(k)s. Find out the minimum amount you'll need to withdraw, depending on your age and the value of your accounts.

Compound Interest Calculator: Find out how much your money can grow, using the power of compound interest.

Social Security Retirement Estimator: Get personalized benefit estimates to help you plan for retirement.

Worksheet for Determining Your Net Worth: Use this worksheet to list your assets and debts.

Worksheet for Tracking Your Income and Expenses: Keeping track of your income and expenses will help you stay on track with your financial goals.

Among others aids included are the following:

A mutual fund analyzer at: http://www.investor.gov/tools/calculators/mutual-fund-analyzerand

A variety of free investment professional background check tools at:

http://www.investor.gov/researching-managing-investments/researching-investments/ask-check

.

Procedures followed in Educator’s probationary evaluations found to have undermined “the integrity and fairness of the entire review process”

Procedures followed in Educator’s probationary evaluations found to have undermined “the integrity and fairness of the entire review process”
2013 NY Slip Op 07275, Appellate Division, First Department

The New York City Department of Education [DOE] terminated a probationary teacher’s [Educator] employment. Educator challenged her termination during her probationary period and her unsatisfactory [U-rating] evaluation as a probationary employee.

Supreme Court denied Educator’s Article 78 petition seeking to annul DOE’s decision to terminate Educator’s probationary employment and affirmed Educator’s U-rating. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court’s ruling on the law, granting Educator’s petition to the extent of annulling the U-rating.

The Appellate Division indicated that Educator’s Article 78 petition appealing DOE’s termination of her probationary employment was filed “well after the expiration of the four-month statute of limitations period.”

In contrast, the court found that Educator’s appeal of her U-rating was timely.

Considering the merits of Educator’s appeal of her U-rating, the Appellate Division noted that Educator had invoked DOE's administrative procedures to appeal the U-rating and the Chancellor's Committee held a hearing and sustain Educator's appeal and recommended that the U-rating be reversed.

DOE, however, did not issue a final decision for more than year, whereby its final determination affirmed the U-rating and in doing so, DOE declined to adopt the recommendation of the Chancellor's Committee to reverse Educator’s U-rating.

Under the circumstances presented, said the court, “we find that the U-rating should be annulled.” The court explained that the record showed that upon timely receipt of her initial written report, Educator implemented its recommendations, and the deficiency set out there in was not noted in the subsequent formal observations.

The decision then reports that Educator’s principal failed to provide Educator with the written evaluation of Educator’s next formal observation for more than three months, and it was given to Educator at the end of the school year when there was little time to implement the multiple suggestions it set out.

Educator’s next formal observation came only nine days after her receiving the report of the previous observation and, said the court, “not surprisingly, the report indicated that she had not implemented the suggestions” set out in the previous report.

The Appellate Division’s conclusion: “In view of the foregoing, we find that the deficiencies in the rating of [Educator] were not merely technical, but undermined the integrity and fairness of the entire review process” and sustained Educators’ appeal of her U-rating.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_07275.htm

.

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


 
.