Summaries of, and commentaries on, selected court and administrative decisions and related matters affecting public employers and employees in New York State in particular and possibly in other jurisdictions in general.
Empire Center's Ken Girardin reports that "One of New York City’s largest public-sector unions has been effectively taken over by its national parent after an audit revealed extensive financial mismanagement."
Click HEREto access Mr. Girardin's report posted on the Internet.
Dr. Robert A. Michaels, NYPPL's Science Consultant, has published a new book focusing on contemporary issues of critical importance to American democracy.The book explores, in a strictly non-partisan manner, the nexus between civics and science, identifying contemporary issues of critical importance for American democracy. It promotes objective, clear thinking toward evidence-based decision making in a range of important issue areas. Dr. Michaels is a politically unaffiliated observer of politics. His analysis is rigorous, and his writing engaging and personal.
Available in a Kindle Edition [$4.99] and in a paperback hard copy format [$19.99], for additional information about this work and to order your copy from Amazon, click HERE.
Managing Cyber Risks: Understanding New Risks and How to Prepare
The cyber risks that threaten America’s state and local governments are changing. Hackers are getting smarter and better organized. Ransomware and malware phishing attempts are growing ever-more sophisticated. Attacks on dams, pipelines and other pieces of critical infrastructure are on the rise. Meanwhile, the changing government environment itself makes it even harder to guard against cyber threats. Telework, remote collaboration, digital service delivery, smart city tech, connected Internet of Things devices - all make cybersecurity exponentially more difficult. In this webinar you'll hear from key government cybersecurity leaders discuss the new cyber risks for state and local agencies – and what you can do to prepare for them.
Click here to Watch now
Bringing Digital Experience into the Network Operations Center
Increasing digital initiatives and cloud adoption fundamentally alter the job of network operations. NetOps teams must now support applications that are operated by third parties and require a different set of skills. Understanding user experience can be a moving target in such a highly decentralized and hybrid enterprise world. In this one-hour webinar you will discover how forward-thinking organizations are re-envisioning their monitoring strategies by evolving traditional NetOps into Experience-Driven NetOps, an innovative approach that routes digital experience metrics through standardized operational workflows to triage and resolve issues faster.
Click here to Watch now
Creating Frictionless Government and Education Experiences Through Innovation
Government and education services should be easily accessible and simple to use for a wide variety of constituents. As the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated, constituents can get frustrated and feel left behind when organizations have complex processes and tools, and not all users will be on the same level of the digital playing field. Thankfully, government and educational agencies have shown a willingness to transform their approaches to meet individuals where they are. Listen in to this discussion to hear how your organization can create frictionless and inclusive services through innovation.
Click here to Watch now
Public sector and education communities are expected to provide constituents and students the information and resources they need quickly. By leveraging artificial intelligence (AI) tools, organizations can enhance digital and voice communications through intelligence-enabled insights. In this 30-minute webinar you will learn how organizations can use AI-based solutions to deliver the right knowledge at the right time for optimal outcomes.
Click here to Watch now
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
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has initiated a national search seeking candidates to replace Deputy Commissioner Jared Snyder. Deputy Commissioner Snyder is retiring in December 2022 after 15 years of service with the Department.
The Deputy Commissioner is responsible for overseeing the development and execution of the State's programs to monitor, protect, and improve air quality through DEC's Division of Air Resources and the implementation of New York's efforts to reduce climate-altering emissions, ramp up renewable energy sources, and help communities adapt to climate change to achieve the goals of the State's ambitious Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA).
The CLCPA commits New York State to 100% zero-emission electricity by 2040, and a reduction of at least 85% below 1990-level GHG emissions by 2050.
Minimum qualifications include a Bachelor's degree and nine years of experience in a field related to environmental conservation, protection, or natural resources. At least four years of managerial experience, including responsibility for implementation of program goals and objectives within established budgets, and supervision or coordination of staff to achieve specific objectives. A Master's degree may be substituted for one year of non-managerial experience and a Ph.D. may be substituted for two years of non-managerial experience.
Click HERE for additional information concerning this opportunity.
In this appeal to the Commissioner of Education seeking the removal of a member of a school board* the Commissioner addresses a number of procedural issues.
The Commissioner's decision is set out below:
ROSA., Commissioner.-- Petitioner seeks the removal of Beatriz LeBron (“respondent”) as a member of the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of Rochester (“board”). The application must be denied.
Pursuant to Part C of chapter 56 of the Laws of 2020, I appointed a monitor to provide oversight, guidance, and technical assistance related to the educational and fiscal policies, practices, programs, and decisions of the Rochester City School District. The monitor, board, and the superintendent developed an academic improvement plan (“plan”), which was implemented during the 2021-2022 school year. The plan included a requirement that “[t]he Board … incorporate racial and linguistic bias training into … the professional development plan for all Board [members].” The board organized such a training, which respondent did not attend. This application ensued.
Petitioner contends that respondent’s refusal to attend the racial bias training constitutes willful disobedience of “a decision, order, rule or regulation” of the Commissioner.[1] Petitioner seeks respondent’s removal from office.
Respondent contends that, while she did not attend the racial bias training, she attended and conducted other trainings that provide sufficient instruction in racial bias. Respondent also argues that some of petitioner’s claims are time-barred.
First, I must address two procedural issues. An appeal to the Commissioner must be commenced within 30 days from the decision or act complained of, unless any delay is excused by the Commissioner for good cause shown (8 NYCRR 275.16; Appeal of Saxena, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,239; Appeal of Lippolt, 48 id. 457, Decision No. 15,914). The 30-day timeframe also applies to a removal application pursuant to Education Law § 306 (8 NYCRR 277.1; Application of Kelty, 48 Ed Dept Rep 476, Decision No. 15,921; Appeal of Budich, 48 id.383, Decision No. 15,892). The Commissioner has held that a removal application is timely when commenced within 30 days of the petitioner’s good faith discovery of the challenged conduct, even if the actual conduct occurred more than 30 days prior (Application of Nett and Raby, 45 Ed Dept Rep 259, Decision No. 15,315; Application of Bean, 42 id. 171, Decision No. 14,810). In her application, petitioner describes numerous actions by respondent that took place more than 30 days prior to the commencement of this appeal. Petitioner has not offered good cause for her delay in raising such allegations. Therefore, I have not considered petitioner’s untimely allegations.
Next, respondent requests permission to submit a late answer pursuant to section 275.13 of the Commissioner’s regulations. Section 275.13 of the Commissioner’s regulations requires each respondent to answer the petition within 20 days from the time of service. Extensions may be granted in the discretion of the Commissioner upon timely application therefor (8 NYCRR 276.3). Similarly, a late answer may be considered in the discretion of the Commissioner if the respondent provides good reason for the delay (Appeal of a Student with a Disability, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,275; Appeal of Ortiz, 47 id. 383, Decision No. 15,731). In the absence of a sufficient excuse for a late answer, the factual allegations set forth in the petition will be deemed true (8 NYCRR 275.11; Appeal of a Student with a Disability, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,275; Appeal of Hamblin, et al., 48 id. 421, Decision No. 15,902). Respondent’s claim of inadvertent error is not good cause for the delay (Appeal of Democracy Prep Endurance Charter School, 59 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,735; Appeal of Murphy, 57 id., Decision No. 17,234). Therefore, I decline to accept respondent’s answer and accompanying affidavits. However, I have considered respondent’s memorandum of law, which was timely submitted.
To the extent it is premised upon a violation of the plan, petitioner’s application must be dismissed as premature. The Commissioner will not render an advisory opinion on an issue before it becomes justiciable (Appeal of Frey, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,308; Appeal of B.R. and M.R., 48 id. 291, Decision No. 15,861). The Commissioner’s jurisdiction pursuant to Education Law § 310 is appellate in nature, and an action is not ripe for review by the Commissioner until it is final and results in an actual, concrete injury (Appeal of Kerley, 60 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,915; Appeal of M.P., 59 id., Decision No. 17,848; Appeal of Parris, 51 id., Decision No. 16,261; seegenerally Matter of Gordon v Rush, 100 NY2d 236, 242 [2003]).
Respondent wrote to me on February 1, 2022, indicating that she would attend a different racial bias program in lieu of the training selected by the board. In a response dated February 11, 2022, I advised respondent, among other things, that [t]he Monitor must determine whether [respondent’s] proposal satisfies the board’s approved plan in the first instance. If the Monitor determines that a provision of the plan has been violated, she may submit a notice of violation to the Commissioner. Thereafter, the District will be afforded an opportunity to respond before the Commissioner determines whether any remedial action is necessary.
I have not received a notice of violation from the Monitor concerning this issue. Such notice is a necessary predicate to the issuance of a “decision” or “order,” the violation of which could give rise to removal under Education Law §306.[2] Thus, any claimed violation of the plan is premature.
Additionally, petitioner has not established that the February 11, 2022 response was a “decision” or “order” within the meaning of Education Law § 306. In an appeal or removal application to the Commissioner, a petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and establishing the facts upon which he or she seeks relief (8 NYCRR 275.10; Appeal of P.C. and K.C., 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,337; Appeal of Aversa, 48 id. 523, Decision No. 15,936; Appeal of Hansen, 48 id.354, Decision No. 15,884). The February 11, 2022 response did not obligate respondent to take any specific action; it merely “encourage[d] [respondent] to consider attending the board-sponsored training.” As such, it cannot form the basis for removal (see Appeal of Moss, 60 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,952 [admonishment to board members not an order of the Commissioner]).
In light of this disposition, I need not address the parties’ remaining contentions.
[1] While petitioner also makes reference to “official misconduct,” this is the standard by which a board may seek to remove one of its own members (see Appeal of Rivers, 60 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,989).
[2] Petitioner would also have to establish that petitioner’s actions were, as required by Education Law § 306, “committed with a wrongful purpose” (Application of McCray, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,240).
* Application of WILLA POWELL for the removal of Beatriz LeBron as a member of the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of Rochester. Decision No. 18,194.
The Law Firm of Frank W. Miller, attorneys for Board of Education of the City School District of the City of Rochester, Frank W. Miller, Esq., of counsel.
Posted on the Internet at: http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume62/d18194