Former Rescue Squad business manager charged with stealing over $17,000 from the Squad

On June 14, 2023, State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, Columbia County District Attorney Paul Czajka, and the New York State Police announced the indictment of former Chatham Rescue Squad Business Manager Sara Thorne, of Forest City, North Carolina, for allegedly stealing more than $17,000 from the rescue squad. The Rescue Squad business manager allegedly used the funds to pay for groceries, meals, and travel for her husband.*

“Thorne allegedly abused her position to divert thousands of dollars meant to protect her community,” DiNapoli said. “Thanks to my ongoing partnership with District Attorney Czajka and the New York State Police, she is now brought to justice.”

“We appreciate the diligence and hard work of the State Comptroller’s Office in this complex financial investigation,” Columbia County District Attorney Paul Czajka said. “Comptroller DiNapoli and his skilled and diligent team of investigators and auditors have uncovered several criminal schemes in Columbia County over the last several years. This is only the latest.”

“I commend the Comptroller and DA’s offices, and our State Police investigators for their stellar work in exposing this fraud,” Acting New York State Police Superintendent Steven A. Nigrelli said. “The arrest of this individual sends a strong message that we will not tolerate such corruption. When a public servant seeks to use their position to profit at the expense of the taxpayers and the local community, they will be held accountable for their crimes and prosecuted appropriately.”

Thorne provided administrative support for the Chatham Rescue Squad for twenty years until her employment was terminated in 2022. Her final position was as Business Manager, where she was the sole officer responsible for payroll, among other duties. While originally based in Columbia County, Thorne was allowed to work remotely from North Carolina since 2015 with an annual salary topping $100,000.

From 2017 to 2019, Thorne was paid annual bonuses of $5,000 to $6,500 by the squad’s Board of Directors. In addition to these bonuses, investigators found Thorne additionally paid herself $9,528 to cover the associated tax liabilities for those payments. Investigators found Thorne cashed out a combined 160 hours of leave in 2019 without board approval or knowledge, paying herself an additional $6,481.

Thorne had a personal credit card she used for rescue squad purchases. Rather than use the card for official business or specific charges, Thorne used this card for personal purchases at a grocery store and a restaurant. Thorne also purchased travel for her husband and upgrades to first class travel for herself. Thorne paid this credit card bill with rescue squad funds. She never presented these expenses to the board for approval or provided bank statements for review.

When DiNapoli’s investigators questioned Thorne about invoices and receipts for her credit card expenses, Thorne provided altered documents to hide the fact that the rescue squad had paid for her husband’s travel. In total, Thorne used $1,068 in squad funds to pay for these expenses.

Thorne, was charged with two counts of Grand Larceny (3rd degree, D Felony), two counts of Falsifying Business Records (1st degree, E Felony) and three counts of Petit Larceny (A Misdemeanor). She was arraigned today before Columbia County Court Judge Jonathan D. Nichols and is due back in court on July 24, 2023.

*N.B.:  The charges filed against Thorne are merely accusations and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.

###

Since taking office in 2007, DiNapoli has committed to fighting public corruption and encourages the public to help fight fraud and abuse. New Yorkers can report allegations of fraud involving taxpayer money by calling the toll-free Fraud Hotline at 1-888-672-4555, by filing a complaint online at https://www.osc.state.ny.us/investigations; or by mailing a complaint to: Office of the State Comptroller, Division of Investigations, 8th Floor, 110 State St., Albany, NY 12236.

Paid Parental Leave policies for employees of the State as the employer in collective bargaining units represented by CSEA

The Department of Civil Service has published the following Attendance and Leave Bulletin:

• Policy Bulletin 2023-02, Paid Parental Leave for CSEA Administrative Services Unit (ASU), Institutional Services Unit (ISU), Operational Services Unit (OSU) and Division of Military and Naval Affairs (DMNA) Employees

Text of Policy Bulletin 2023-02 is posted on the Internet at:
https://www.cs.ny.gov/attendance_leave/PolBull23-02.cfm

If you wish to print Policy Bulletin 2023-02, the Department offers a version in PDF format at:
https://www.cs.ny.gov/attendance_leave/PB2023-02BulletinandChart.pdf

To view previous Attendance and Leave bulletins issued by the Department of Civil Service, visit: https://www.cs.ny.gov/attendance_leave/index.cfm

Challenging a school board election and budget vote and seeking the removal of a member of the school board

The Petitioner in this appeal to the Commissioner of Education challenged [1] the vote on the school district's proposed annual budget and [2] the election of candidates to the school board.*  

After addressing a "procedural matter", Commissioner of Education Betty A. Rosa turned to the merits of Petitioner's appeal, noting that 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, citing 8 NYCRR 275.10.

Although the Petitioner asserted that the district made multiple errors in connection with the election, the Commissioner found that she has failed to meet her burden of proving that any of these alleged errors affected the outcome of the election, were so pervasive that they vitiated the electoral process, or that they demonstrated a clear and convincing picture of informality to the point of laxity in adherence to the Education Law.

As an example, the Commissioner noted that Petitioner characterizes the school district’s use of a ballot on election day that was different in format than the sample ballot it published on its website as the “capstone to numerous examples of a dereliction of duties.”** 

The Commissioner, however, noted that the single example advanced by Petitioner - that "one resident informed her she had made an error in casting her vote intended for [Petitioner] due to confusion about the ballot’s format" - she failed to produce any evidence such as "affidavits or signed statements from district voters, to support her claim."

Opining that "It is well settled that mere speculation as to the existence of irregularities or the effect of irregularities provides an insufficient basis on which to annul election results," the Commissioner concluded that Petitioner "failed to meet her burden of proving that [the school district] committed election irregularities that affected the results of the election or was otherwise negligent in its oversight and execution of the school board election and budget vote.

Similarly, said Commissioner Rosa, Petitioner had not alleged sufficient facts to support removal of the trustee named in her appeal. Citing a number of earlier decisions of Commissioners of Education, Dr. Rosa observed that a school officer or member of a board of education may be removed from office "when it is proven to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that the officer or board member has engaged in a willful violation or neglect of duty under the Education Law" citing Education Law §306[1].

To be considered willful, the action of a board member or school officer must have been intentional and committed with a wrongful purpose. Even accepting Petitioner’s allegations concerning the trustee as true, Petitioner "does not allege that [the trustee named] acted with a wrongful purpose.

The Commissioner held that "The appeal must be dismissed and the application for removal must be denied."

* Petitioner was one of five candidates seeking election to the school board and was not elected. She also sought the removal of one of candidates elected to the board.  

** While the sample ballot listed candidates vertically, divided into two columns, the actual ballot listed candidates horizontally with an empty box under the name of the first three candidates and a bubble under the names of petitioner and the final candidate.

Click HERE to access the Commissioner's decision posted on the Internet.

Court considered employee's long unblemished service record in mitigating imposing the disciplinary penalty of dismissal "under the circumstances"

A tenured teacher [Educator], was charged with conduct unbecoming a teacher, misconduct, and insubordination for allegedly inappropriately restraining a female student who was trying to get past him. The matter proceeded to arbitration, resulting in a determination, after a hearing, finding Educator guilty of inappropriate conduct and the imposition of the penalty of termination of his employment with the school district. Educator then commenced a proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 75 seeking to vacate the determination. Supreme Court denied Educator's petition and dismissed the proceeding. Educator appealed.

The Appellate Division held that there was a rational basis and evidentiary support for the finding that Educator committed the conduct with which he was charged by inappropriately restraining a female student who was trying to get past him. 

A video of the incident, which was admitted into evidence at the hearing, however, could be interpreted in more than one way. Citing Saunders v Rockland Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs., 62 AD3d at 1013, the Appellate Division explained it must "accept the arbitrator's credibility determinations, even where there is conflicting evidence and room for choice exists".

Noting the decisions in Matter of Principe v New York City Dept. of Educ., 94 AD3d 431, affirmed 20 NY3d 963, the Appellate Division, in consideration of Educator's otherwise unblemished record of approximately 19 years as a teacher with the school district, opined "the penalty of termination of employment was so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness".

The Appellate Division then vacated the disciplinary penalty terminating Educator's employment and remitted the matter to the school district "for the imposition of a lesser penalty".

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.

===================

A Reasonable Disciplinary Penalty Under the Circumstances.  The text of this NYPPL e-book focuses on court and administrative decisions addressing disciplinary penalties imposed on officers and employees in the public service in instances where the individual has been found guilty of misconduct and, or, incompetence. For additional information and access to a free excerpt from this e-book click HERE.

 

 

Attendance Rule providing "paid family leave" for employees in the Classified Service of the State as the employer designated Managerial or Confidential proposed

The New York State Department of Civil Service has proposed the adoption of a new  "consensus rule",* set out below,  to provide a grant of up to twelve weeks of paid family leave for a qualifying event for eligible employees** in serving in positions in the Classified Service*** of the State of New York as the employer designated Managerial or Confidential within the meaning of Article 14 of the Civil Service Law. Article 14 of the Civil Service Law is frequently referred to as the "Taylor Law".

* A proposed rule or regulation may be filed as a consensus rule or regulation if the agency concludes that the proposed rule or regulation is non-controversial based on its subject.

** Although not all employees of the State as the employer in the Classified Service are State officers, all officers of the State as the employer in the Classified Service are employees of the State. 

*** See Civil Service Law §40.

-------------

Department of Civil Service

PROPOSED RULE MAKING NO HEARING(S) SCHEDULED

Paid Family Leave I.D. No. CVS-23-23-00001-P

PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE State Administrative Procedure Act, NOTICE is hereby given of the following proposed rule:

Proposed Action: This is a consensus rule making to add §28-1.19 to Title 4 NYCRR.  

Statutory authority: Civil Service Law, §6(1)

Subject: Paid family leave.

Purpose: To provide a grant of up to twelve weeks of paid family leave for a qualifying event for subject employees in M/C positions.

Text of proposed rule:

RESOLVED, That subject to the approval of the Governor, Section 28 of the Attendance Rules for Employees in New York State Departments and Institutions be and hereby is amended, with a new subdivision to read as follows: 

28-1.19 Paid Parental Leave

(1) Employees shall be granted up to twelve weeks of paid leave without charge to accruals for each qualifying event, defined as the birth of a child or placement of a child for adoption or foster care. Paid parental leave begins on the date of birth, the day of adoption or foster care placement or anytime thereafter within seven months. An employee’s eligibility to use paid parental leave ends seven months from the date of the qualifying event.

(2) Paid parental leave is available for use once every twelve-month period.

(3) Employees using paid parental leave are deemed to be in leave without pay status for attendance and leave purposes.

(4) Paid parental leave must be taken in a single block of time and cannot be used intermittently. If an employee returns to work after using less than the full twelve week grant of paid parental leave, the employee can no longer use any paid parental leave for the same or another qualifying event within the same twelve month period, as computed from the date of the original qualifying event.

 

The text of proposed rule and any required statements and analyses may be obtained from: Jennifer Paul, NYS Department of Civil Service, Empire State Plaza, Agency Building 1, Albany, NY 12239, (518) 473-6598, email: commops@cs.ny.gov

Data, views or arguments may be submitted to: Eugene Sarfoh, Counsel, NYS Department of Civil Service, Empire State Plaza, Agency Building 1, Albany, NY 12239, (518) 473-2624, email: public.comments@cs.ny.gov. Public comment will be received until: 60 days after publication of this notice.

Consensus Rule Making Determination Section 6(1) of the Civil Service Law authorizes the State Civil Service Commission to prescribe and amend suitable rules and regulations concerning leaves of absence for employees in the Classified Service of the State.

On January 10, 2023, Governor Hochul announced that New York State will provide twelve weeks of Paid Parental Leave for unrepresented (Managerial/Confidential) executive branch state employees to bond with a newly born, adopted, or fostered child.

Effective February 14, 2023, Paid Parental Leave became available to any gestational, non-gestational, adoptive, or foster parent who meets certain eligibility criteria for unrepresented executive branch employees.

All other child care leave benefits, including sick leave accruals, family sick leave benefits, Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Income Protection Plan (IPP), and Paid Family Leave (PFL), remain unchanged and available for use when applicable.

Consistent with Commission practice, significant changes to State leave polices are incorporated, as appropriate, as amendments or additions to the Attendance Rules for Employees in New State Departments and Institutions (Attendance Rules). Accordingly, Paid Parental Leave is hereby added to Part 28 of the Attendance Rules, applicable to employees serving in unrepresented positions.

As no person or entity is likely to object to the rule as written, the proposed rule is advanced as a consensus rule pursuant to State Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA) §202(1)(b)(i). Employees in represented New York State positions will be eligible to obtain equivalent benefits through the collective bargaining process.

Job Impact Statement

By amending Title 4 of the NYCRR to provide for Paid Parental Leave for certain New York State employees serving in unrepresented positions, this rule will not negatively impact jobs or employment opportunities for eligible employees, as set forth in §201-a(2)(a) of the State Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA). Therefore, a Job Impact Statement (JIS) is not required by §201-a of such Act.