Webinars for the week of August 22, 2022 offered by Government Technology

Monday, August 22, 2022 | 1:00pm Eastern

How video and image analytics are driving smarter operations

Video and image analytics gives government agencies the ability to collect up-to-date information in the field without human labor and then respond proactively if action is needed. As a case in point, the state of Oklahoma has recently taken advantage of video and image analytics to notify drivers that they need vehicle insurance. This fascinating use case has allowed Oklahoma to increase the number of insured drivers on the road without the use of traffic stops or other assistance from law enforcement. Join Government Technology for a discussion on how video and image analytics can improve your agency’s operations.

Click here to Register to attend

 

Thursday, August 25, 2022| 1:00pm Eastern

How to De-Risk Major ERP Migration

Transforming legacy ERP systems – major initiatives related to finance, human capital, supply chain processes and other key functions – helps governments become more efficient and effective. But too many ERP migrations end in failure. With the right approach and the right solutions – including industry-leading practices like process mining – agencies can ensure successful ERP migrations. During this webinar you'll learn best practices and top strategies for a seamless, successful transformation of legacy ERP systems.

Click here to Register to attend

 

Friday, August 26, 2022 | 2:00pm Eastern

Cloud-Based Data Interoperability: A Game-Changer for Emergency Communications

Recent research indicates emergency response leaders grapple with various challenges revolving around data on a regular basis. To overcome many of these hurdles, policies will have to be rethought, networks will have to be kept secure and staff will have to learn how to use new digital tools. This discussion will share steps you can take to achieve superior data interoperability and enable faster access to potentially life-saving information.

Click here to Register to attend

To view upcoming and on-demand webinars, visit webinars.govtech.com.

For assistance with registration, contact Jeremy Smith at jsmith@erepublic.com (916) 932-1402 direct

Audit sought by New York State Nurses Association Benefit Fund held within the scope of the Supreme Court's ruling in Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Central Transport, Inc.

New York State Nurses Association Benefit Fund [Fund] sought an audit of the Nyack Hospital’s [Hospital] payroll and wage records. The Hospital objected, claiming that the Fund had the authority to inspect only the payroll records of employees the Hospital identified as members of the collective bargaining unit. The federal district court held that the Fund was entitled to the records of all persons the Hospital identified as registered nurses but not to the records of any other employees.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed in part and affirm in part.* To the extent the district court granted the Hospital’s cross-motion for summary judgment and denied the Fund’s motion for summary judgment, the Circuit Court reverse. To the extent the district court granted the Fund’s motion for summary judgment and denied the Hospital’s cross-motion for summary judgment, the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling. 

The Circuit Court held that the audit sought by the Fund was authorized by the Trust Agreement. Further, the Circuit Court opined that the Hospital did not present evidence that the audit constituted a breach of the Fund’s fiduciary duty within the meaning of ERISA. 

Accordingly, the Circuit Court concluded that the audit was within the scope of the Fund trustees’ authority under the United States Supreme Court’s decision inCentral States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Central Transport,Inc., 472 U.S. 559.

*Judge Carney dissented in part in a separate opinion. 

Click HEREto access the Second Circuit's decision.

 

Union leader's arguments with fellow School District personnel held to have been made in his capacity as a School District employee and thus not within the ambit of the First Amendment

Plaintiff [Union Leader], in this appeal of an adverse decision by a federal district court to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, contends that his employer [School District] violated his First Amendment rights by retaliating against him for speech he claims to have made in his capacity as a union leader. 

However, the Second Circuit observed that in his complaint filed with the federal district-court Union Leader merely alleged that he had argued with "a School District mechanic – and later, a few School District officials" – over the frequency with which bus safety issues should be reported." Union Leader, however, did not allege that the School District’s existing policy permitted unsafe buses to remain on the roads, nor did he allege that daily reporting would improve public safety. Thus the court concluded that Union Leader's claims "suggest nothing more than a workplace dispute between School District employees about internal reporting protocols." 

The Circuit Court explaining that Union Leader did not plausibly allege that he spoke as a citizen or that he spoke on a matter of public concern thus being engaged "in speech protected under the First Amendment," affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Union Leader's complaint.* 

Although Union Leader argued that the School District"infringed his right to engage in speech protected by the First Amendment" the Circuit Court, citing Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410. noted that “when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties ... the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.” In contrast, said the court, the First Amendment "protects a public employee’s right, in certain circumstances, to speak as a citizen addressing matters of public concern,” [Id. at 417]. 

The specific details provided in the Complaint suggest that Union Leader's arguments with fellow School District personnel were made in his capacity as a School District employee, not as a private citizen,  noting that the Second Circuit has expressly rejected any categorical rule “that when a person speaks in his capacity as a union member, he speaks as a private citizen,” citing Montero v. City of Yonkers, 890 F.3d 386. 

Concluding that Union Leader "failed to establish that he engaged in protected speech, he cannot make out a prima facie case of First Amendment retaliation," the court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Union Leader's complaint. 

* Judge Rosemary S. Pooler dissenting in a separate opinion. 

Click HEREto access the Second Circuit's decision.

 

Failure to "join" a necessary party in filing an appeal with the Commissioner of Education a fatal omission

An individual and, or, an entity whose rights would be adversely affected by a determination in favor of a petitioner is a necessary party in filing an appeal with the Commissioner of Education pursuant to §310 of the Education Law and must be named in the petition as such. 

Dismissing this appeal seeking the termination of the superintendent of the school district, Commissioner of Education Betty A. Rosa noted that the petitioner's had failed to notify a necessary party of the filing of the appeal, the superintendent. The Commissioner explained that were the petitioner to prevail, superintendent's right "would be adversely affected" and thus the superintendent "is a necessary party and must be joined as such."

Citing Appeal of Sutton, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,331, and other decisions by the Commissioner, Dr. Rosa further explained that such "joinder" requires that the necessary party be clearly named in the caption of the appeal and served with a copy of the notice of petition and [the] petition".

As the petitioner failed to serve the superintendent with the copy of the petition and the superintendent’s contractual rights would be adversely affected by a determination in petitioner’s favor, the Commissioner ruled the petitioner's appeal "must be dismissed."

Click HEREto access the Commissioner's decision posted on the Internet. 

The Discipline Book - A concise guide to disciplinary actions involving public officers and employees in New York State set out as an e-book. For more about this electronic handbook, click HERE.  Click to Read a FREE excerpt (requires Adobe Reader).  

 

Employee's request that his employer provide for his defense and indemnification in a civil action denied as the underlying act was beyond the scope of his employment

In this appeal to Commissioner of Education Betty A. Rosa, a former teacher [Educator] contended that the Board of Education of his former employer, a school district, should have granted his request for defense and indemnification with respect to a civil action initiated by a former student alleging, among other things, that Educator had sexually assaulted her while she was a student at the school district’s high school. 

Addressing the merits Educator's argument, the Commissioner Rosa said that Education Law §3811 identifies the circumstances under which a school district is required to defend and indemnify “member[s] of the teaching or supervisory staff” in civil “actions or proceedings.” Defense and indemnification, opined the Dr. Rosa, is only available if the alleged conduct arose out of the “exercise of [a teacher's] powers or the performance of [his or her] duties,” a phrase equivalent to the term “scope of employment.”

Citing N.X. v Cabrini Med. Ctr., 97 NY2d 247 and other decisions, the Commissioner noted that New York State's Court of Appeals has unambiguously held that sexual assault perpetrated by an employee is a “clear departure from the scope of employment, having been committed for wholly personal motives”. Thus, opined Commissioner Rosa, the Board of Education "appropriately denied [Educator's] request that the school district defend him against allegations of sexual assault."

The Commissioner also noted that "[t]he record does not reveal whether [the Board of Education had] adopted the protections of Public Officers Law §18" but concluding that this would not affect the outcome of this appeal as Public Officers Law §18(3)(a) imposes an identical “scope of employment” requirement, citing Matter of Dreyer v City of Saratoga Springs, 43 AD3d 586.

Click HEREto access the Commissioner's decision.