Application to remove an individual serving as "trustee and president" of the school board

An applicant sought to have the Commissioner of Education remove the President of the school board for a number of reasons including "consistently arguing with parents at almost every [board] meeting” and for "abstaining from a school board vote."

Commissioner Rosa dismissed the appeal for two procedural reasons. 

First Dr. Rosa ruled that the application must be dismissed for improper service.

§275.8(a) of the Commissioner’s regulations requires that the petition be personally served upon each named respondent. In this instance the Commissioner found that the record indicates that Petitioner failed to properly serve the petition upon the President, who is the sole respondent in the application but left the petition with a “receptionist” at the school board’s district office whom the Petitioner knew to be “responsible for receiving district mail.” §275.8(a), however, of the Commissioner’s regulations applicable to removal proceedings pursuant to Commissioner’s regulation §277.1, requires that the petition be personally served upon each named respondent. 

The President contended that she was never personally served with a copy of the petition and Petitioner did not challenge this contention.  Accordingly the Commissioner ruled that the petition "must be dismissed for improper service," citing Decision of the Commissioner of Education No. 17,391. 

In addition Dr. Rosa held that the application must be dismissed for lack of the specialized notice required by §277.1 (b) of the Commissioner’s regulations. This regulation, said the Commissioner, sets out "the specific notice required for removal applications pursuant to Education Law §306, which is distinct from the notice required under §275.11(a) for appeals pursuant to Education Law §310."

The Commissioner explained that the notice of petition "secures jurisdiction over the intended respondent and alerts the respondent that he or she must appear in the removal proceeding and answer the allegations contained in the application." Accordingly, the Commissioner held that such situations "a removal application that does not include the specific notice required by 8 NYCRR 277.1(b) is fatally defective and must be denied."

Click HEREto access the text of the Commissioner's decision.

Tax Information for Federal, State and Local Governments

Internal Revenue Service [IRS] increases mileage rate for remainder of 2022 

The IRS announced an increase in the optional standard mileage rate for the final 6 months of 2022 in recognition of recent gasoline price increases. Taxpayers may use the optional standard mileage rates to calculate the deductible costs of operating an automobile for business and certain other purposes, effective July 1, 2022. 

 

2023 inflation adjusted amounts for Health Savings Accounts 

Revenue Procedure 2022-24 provides the 2023 inflation adjusted amounts for Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) as determined under Section 223 of the Internal Revenue Code and the maximum amount that may be made newly available for excepted benefit health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs) provided under Section 54.9831-1(c)(3)(viii) of the Pension Excise Tax Regulations.

For calendar year 2023, the annual limitation on deductions for:

Individual with self-only coverage under a high deductible health plan is $3,850;

Individual with family coverage under a high deductible health plan is $7,750.

 

Election workers: Reporting and withholding

Each election year, thousands of state and local government entities hire workers to conduct primary and general elections. To understand the correct tax treatment of these workers, employers need to be aware of specific statutes that apply to them as well as whether they are covered by a Section 218 Agreement.

Who are election workers? Election workers are individuals hired by government entities to perform services at polling places in connection with national, state and local elections. An election worker may be referred to by other terms and titles, for example, poll worker, moderator, machine tender, checker, ballot clerk, voting official, polling place manager, absentee ballot counter or deputy head moderator. These workers may be employed by the government entity exclusively for election work or may work in other capacities as well.

Compensation paid to election workers is includible as wage income for income tax purposes and may be treated as wages for Social Security and Medicare (FICA) tax purposes.

Election workers may be compensated by a set fee per day or a stipend for the election period. The election period may include attending training or meetings prior to and after the election. Election workers may also be reimbursed for their mileage or other expenses. To be excludable from wages, expense reimbursements must be made under an accountable plan.

For more Information see Election Workers: Reporting and Withholding.

 

 

 

Audits and reports issued by the New York State Comptroller during the week ending August 19, 2022

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the audits listed below for School Districts and Municipalities issued during the week ending August 19, 2022

Click on the text highlighted in color to access the complete audit report.

School District

Indian River Central School District – Financial Condition Management (2022M-92) The Board and District officials did not adequately manage the District’s financial condition and the current findings and recommendations are similar to our November 2016 Financial Condition audit report. While the Board and officials made some progress in implementing the prior audit recommendations, they must continue to improve their management of financial condition, otherwise more taxes will be levied than are needed to fund operations.

Click here to read complete report - pdf

 

Minisink Valley Central School District did not maximized Medicaid reimbursements -- The District did not maximize Medicaid reimbursements by claiming for all eligible Medicaid services provided.

• Claims were not submitted for reimbursement for at least 3,083 eligible services totaling $187,932. Had these services been claimed, the District would have realized revenues totaling $93,966 (50 percent of the Medicaid reimbursements).
  
• Between July 1, 2020 and December 31, 2021, the District paid a third-party vendor (vendor) $54,996 to process the District’s Medicaid claims. However, officials did not provide the vendor with all of the documentation needed for the vendor to properly file all Medicaid claims and did not adequately oversee the vendor to ensure Medicaid reimbursements were maximized.

Click here to read complete report - pdf

Wynantskill Union Free School District – Purchasing (2022M-85)

District officials could not always support competition was sought when purchasing goods and services that fell below the statutory bidding thresholds. Officials did not:

• Develop clear guidance in procedures to seek competition for purchasing goods and services that were not required to be competitively bid.
• Follow the District’s purchasing policy for 25 purchases (83 percent) totaling $53,883.
• Adequately document they sought competition for 17 purchases totaling $27,231. Further, contract award and pricing information was lacking on seven purchases made through State contract vendors, and the District should have paid $1,028 less for three purchases.

Click here to read complete report - pdf

 

Municipalities

Town of Hempstead – Information Technology Access Controls (2021M-158)

Town officials did not establish adequate access controls to help safeguard IT systems against unauthorized access.

The Board and Town officials did not:

• Develop and adopt comprehensive IT policies and procedures addressing key IT security issues, such as breach notification, and those related to acceptable computer use, protection of PPSI, application and network controls, password security, and user access controls.
• Provide IT security awareness training to all IT users, so they understand IT security measures and their roles in safeguarding data and IT assets.

In addition, sensitive IT control weaknesses were communicated confidentially to officials.

Click here to read complete report - pdf

 

Applying the Rule of Three in selecting an individual from an eligible list for appointment to a position in the competitve class

How many names must be certified for appointment from an eligible list established as the result of a competitive examination to a position in the Competitive Class?

Prior to 1900 New York State civil service appointments from eligible lists were based on the rule of one, also referred to as "the rule of the list." This rule mandated the appointment of the candidate standing highest on the eligible list certified by the responsible civil service commission.

In 1900 the "rule of one" was struck down by the Court of Appeals as unconstitutional. The Court ruled that "if the civil service commissioners have power to certify to the appointing officer only one applicant of several who are eligible and whom they have, by their own methods, ascertained to be fitted for a particular position, and their decision is final ... then the civil service commission becomes and is the actual appointing power" [People v Mosher, 163 NY 32].

This decision prompted establishment of the so-called "rule of three," currently set out in Section 61.1 of the Civil Service Law. Section 61.1 permits the appointing authority to select from among the three candidates who stand highest on the eligible list and are interested in the appointment. The rule of three was held valid by the Court of Appeals in People v Gaffney, 201 NY 535, a case decided in 1911.

In applying the Rule of Three, tie scores allow the appointing authority to make its selection from among far more than three eligible candidates. For example, if the eligible list consists of one candidate having a score of 100, a second with a score of 99 and 60 candidates each with a score of 98, all 62 candidates will be deemed "reachable for appointment."

On the other hand, if there is but one vacancy to fill and 60 individuals attained a score of 100 while one eligible had a score of 99 and another eligible had a score of 98, the appointing authority could only select from among the "top 60" eligible candidates and may not consider either [or both] of the two lower scoring candidates for the appointment "until the 60 name certification is exhausted," i.e. reduced to two names or to one name.

Further, under certain circumstance, Section 60.1 of the Civil Service Law permits the responsible civil service commission to combine two eligible lists in order to provide a "mandatory list" -- a list consisting of at least three qualified candidates willing to accept appointment to the position.

Although courts have ruled that a civil service commission cannot mandate a rule of one, the appointing authority itself may elect to be bound by such a rule. This has not been viewed as offending public policy because the appointing authority has merely truncated its ability to exercise discretion with respect to selecting candidates for appointment. Such a truncation is typically the reflection of a term or condition set out in a Collective Bargaining Agreement or a Memorandum of Understanding negotiated pursuant to Article 14 of the Civil Service Law, the so-called "Taylor Law".

There is, however, a provision in the Civil Service Law addressing "preferred lists; certification and reinstatement therefrom" which mandates appointments in accordance with the "Rule of One". Subdivision 2 of Section 81 of said law provides, in pertinent part, that "the names of persons on a preferred list shall be certified therefrom for reinstatement to a vacancy in an appropriate position in the order of their original appointments [emphasis supplied]." Further, Subdivision 4 of Section 81 provides that "no person suspended or demoted prior to the completion of his probationary term shall be certified for reinstatement until the exhaustion of the preferred list of all other eligibles thereon" and upon such reinstatement, "such probationer shall be required to complete his probationary term."

 

 

School Districts Share ‘Lesson Plan’ for Boosting Cybersecurity

On August 22, 2022, GOVTECH reported that "K-12 school districts’ collections of student data, array of digital systems and limited defense budgets are just some of the factors that make them tempting targets for cyber attackers," citing speakers during a FedInsider panel on August 21, 2022. 

GOVTECH noted that "active threat monitoring, security awareness training, vetted cloud vendors and other strategies can help reduce the dangers." 

In the words of GOVTECH, "Valuable student data, many digital systems and devices frequently shuttled between homes and schools make K-12 districts vulnerable to cyber attack. But there are plenty of ways districts can armor up." 

Click here to READ MORE.