County commissioner in New Mexico removed from office under color of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United State provides as follows:

§3. "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

New Mexico's Albuquerque Journal reporter Ryan Boetel notes that a state judge in New Mexico removed a county commissioner found guilty of participating in the January 6, 2022 invasion of the Capitol of the United States in federal district court under color of said §3.

With respect to public officers of New York State and its political subdivisions, the State Attorney General has opined that a public officer appointed for fixed statutory term may be removed prior to the expiration of the term only for cause and is entitled to due process protection prior to dismissal [Opinions of the Attorney General 88-49]. In the event an individual is "not entitled to a hearing under Civil Service Law, §75 or any other statute," the Attorney General further observed "a hearing must derive from the due process clause of the Constitution (NY Const, Art 1, §6; US Const, 14th Amendment)."

The Attorney General explained that "... courts have held that a public employee threatened with dismissal is entitled to due process protections if he has acquired a liberty or property interest in his employment; that is, a legitimate entitlement to continued employment," citing Economico v Village of Pelham, 50 NY2d 120, Elrod v Burns, 427 US 347, and Board of Regents v Roth, 408 US 564. 

Opinions of the Attorney General 88-49 also notes "The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that the sufficiency of a claim of entitlement must be made by reference to appropriate State or local laws", citing Bishop v Wood, 426 US 341. 

Click HERE to access the full text of Mr. Boetel's article published in the Albuquerque Journal posted on the Internet.

 

School District's motion to dismiss the causes of action alleging a student was sexually molested by an employee of the school district denied

In this action to recover damages, the complainant [Plaintiff] alleged that he was sexually molested by his guidance counselor, who was an employee or special employee of the defendant [School District].  Supreme Court denied School District's motion to dismiss the causes of action alleging "negligence, gross negligence, negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and direction, and breach of fiduciary duty insofar as asserted." 

The School District appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.

Explaining that on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action under CPLR §3211(a)(7) the Appellate Division said that a court must "accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" and denied School District's appeal.*

The amended complaint alleged, among other things, that the School District had prior notice of the guidance counselor's propensity to sexually molest students and that the School District "nevertheless permitted the guidance counselor to meet one-on-one with students, including the Plaintiff, and that the School District thereby negligently failed to prevent the guidance counselor from sexually molesting the Plaintiff."

Further, said the Appellate Division, Supreme Court properly found that the Plaintiff sufficiently pleaded causes of action alleging negligence, gross negligence, and negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and direction, citing Moskowitz v Masliansky, 198 AD3d 637 and other decisions.

* The Appellate Division noted "[c]auses of action alleging negligent hiring, negligent retention, or negligent supervision are not statutorily required to be pleaded with specificity".

Click HEREto access the Appellate Division's decision.

Government Technology Webinars scheduled to be held during the week ending September 3, 2022

Wednesday, August 31 | 1:00pm Eastern

Enhancing Voice and Digital Engagement with Communications Platform as a Service Solutions 

The ability to reach and respond to constituents and students where they are, on whatever device they’re using, in real time is a differentiating factor that elevates the engagement experience for state and local government and education. Communications Platform as a Service (CPaaS) solutions help agencies build upon their existing applications to create access to all the popular communication methods the public wants to use. Join us for a 30-minute webinar on how organizations can use CPaaS solutions to integrate new communications tools into their workflow quickly and easily.

Click here to Register to attend 

 

Wednesday, August 31 | 2:00pm Eastern

Heightened Visibility is Key to Efficient Threat Detection and Risk Mitigation 

Local and state governments must constantly reevaluate their security strategies to ensure they’re up to the task of combatting today’s evolving threat landscape. Recent survey results demonstrate what agencies are most concerned about and what they are doing to mitigate risks. To unpack the results of the latest research, register to reserve your spot!

Click here to Register to attend 

 

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

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

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.