The 2023 New York Public Sector Secure Operations (SecOps) Summit

 Overview

Cyber-attacks have increased dramatically over the last few years. 

The 2023 New York Public Sector Secure Operations (SecOps) Summit provides an opportunity for government technology professionals to learn about the latest efforts to defend, respond and recover from cyber criminals who wish to do harm. 

The Summit, hosted by the New York Office of Information Technology Services (ITS),  will include cybersecurity leaders from state and local government throughout New York.

Event Date: November 1, 2023 ---- Open to Public Sector only.

Registration is Free, Click here to Register Now 

 

Made Possible by Government Technology Corporate Sponsors

Anchor Sponsor

 

 

Anchor Sponsor

 

 

Anchor Sponsor

 

 

Anchor Sponsor

 

 

Anchor Sponsor

 

 

Exhibitor Sponsor

 

 

Exhibitor Sponsor

 

 

Exhibitor Sponsor

 

 

Exhibitor Sponsor

 

 

Exhibitor Sponsor

 

 

Patron Sponsor

 

 

If you represent a Private Sector organization and are interested in Sponsorship Opportunities, please contact Heather Earney, heather.earney@erepublic.com

Contact Information

For registration and general assistance contact:

Kathy Simpson
Government Technology
Phone: (916) 932-1394
E-mail: ksimpson@govtech.com

Sponsorship opportunities are available. For more information, contact:

Heather Earney
Government Technology
Phone: (916) 932-1339
E-mail: heather.earney@erepublic.com

 

Municipal and School Audits released by New York State Comptroller

On Septermber 1, 2023, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following local government and school audits were issued.

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

 

Hicksville Union Free School District – Managing Network User Accounts (Nassau County)

District officials did not properly manage network user account controls to help maintain continuity of business office operations and prevent unauthorized computer use, access and loss. Officials also did not establish written procedures for granting, verifying, changing and disabling network user account access, including business office network user account access. Some sensitive information technology control weaknesses were confidentially communicated to district officials.

 

Rondout Valley Central School District – Fixed Assets (Ulster County)

District officials did not properly account for and monitor all of the district’s fixed assets. Of the 80 fixed assets totaling $856,681 reviewed, 64 assets totaling $549,117 were not properly accounted for. Testing identified: 34 fixed assets with a combined cost of $255,775 did not have the required asset tags identifying them as district-owned; and 12 fixed assets with a combined cost of $213,960 could not be located. Another 18 fixed assets with a combined cost of $79,383 were not recorded on the district’s inventory list.

 

Town of Seneca Falls – Cash Collections (Seneca County)

The town supervisor’s office did not maintain adequate receipt documentation for cash collections totaling $186,873 and reconciliations were not always performed or reviewed. Officials did not properly deposit and record approximately $10,000 of permit fees and $2,000 of security deposits for facility rentals in accordance with statutory requirements. In addition, the accounting functions performed by staff were not always properly segregated or reviewed and the town board did not adopt a written town-wide cash collection policy.

 

Mexico Academy Central School District – Procurement (Oswego County)

District officials did not always seek competition when purchasing goods and services as required by the procurement policy. Officials did not seek competition when procuring professional services for occupational and physical therapy, legal, music therapy, advertising and architectural services from seven vendors totaling $640,880. The district also did not obtain written quotes for the purchase of certain items from three vendors totaling $17,762 and did not maintain documentation to justify why they used nine sole source providers for the purchase of goods and services totaling $54,045.

 

Village of Johnson City – Sexual Harassment Prevention (SHP) Training (Broome County)

SHP training was not provided to all employees. Of the 20 total individuals tested (14 selected employees and all six elected officials), two employees did not complete the annual SHP Training. Additionally, over 30 seasonal workers were excluded from SHP training and one of the two SHP trainings provided by the village did not include all the minimum requirements. As a result, most village employees were provided with incomplete SHP Training.

 

East Irondequoit Central School District – Sexual Harassment Prevention Training (Monroe County)

SHP training was not provided to all employees or any board members. Although employees are required to complete SHP training each year, board members are not. Of the 110 total individuals tested (101 selected employees and all nine board members), 15 employees and the nine board members did not complete the annual SHP training. Additionally, the district excluded per diem and stipend employees from SHP Training.

 

Avoca Central School District – Sexual Harassment Prevention Training (Steuben County)

SHP Training was not provided to all employees or any board members. Employees are required to complete SHP training each year, though board members are not. Of the 20 total individuals tested (15 selected employees and all five board members), four employees and the five board members did not complete the annual SHP Training.

###

Also available on the Internet:

State and Local Retirement System (NYSLRS) for State Fiscal Year (SFY) 2024-25. 

Employers’ average contribution rates will increase from 13.1% to 15.2% of payroll for the Employees’ Retirement System (ERS) and from 27.8% to 31.2% of payroll for the Police and Fire Retirement System (PFRS).

Click Annual Report to the Comptroller on Actuarial Assumptions to access the Comptroller's Annual Report.

 

 

Administrative Law Judge recommended the termination of an employee "who was discourteous and falsified timekeeping records"

The New York City Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene [Employer] served one of its Public Health Nurses [Respondent] with disciplinary charges pursuant to §75 of the Civil Service Law alleging Respondent had engaged in "uncivil and discourteous behavior toward a co-worker, slept on duty, and repeatedly falsified her timesheets".

Respondent, appearing via video-conference and presenting four witnesses and documentary evidence, denied all charges.

New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings Administrative Law Judge Kevin F. Casey made the following findings:

1. Employer proved that Respondent engaged in uncivil and discourteous behavior, and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline as alleged in Charge I, Specification A, of the amended petition;

2. Employer failed to prove that Respondent used inappropriate language or pushed a school nurse, as alleged in Charge I, Specification A, of the amended petition;

3. Employer failed to prove that Respondent slept on duty or engaged in conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline as alleged in Charge II, Specification A, of the amended petition;

4. Employer proved that Respondent submitted false records and engaged in conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline when she falsified her timekeeping records on 15 occasions alleged in Charge III, Specifications A through N, and Specification P, of the amended petition; and

 5. Employer failed to prove that Respondent falsified her timesheet on one occasion, May 24, 2022, as alleged in Charge III, Specification O, of the amended petition.

After making the above findings, Judge Casey requested and received Respondent’s disciplinary history and recent performance evaluations. The ALJ noted the record indicated that [1] in 2018 Respondent accepted a reprimand in satisfaction of charges that she slept on duty on two occasions; [2] Respondent failed to leave a school building during a fire drill; and [2] Respondent's most recent, available performance evaluation rates her work as good.

Noting that Employer seeks the termination of Respondent’s employment, Judge Casey opined that "That is appropriate. Falsifying timesheets is serious misconduct that often leads to termination of employment, citing a number of decisions by New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings Administrative Law Judges.

In the words of Judge Casey, the Employer "expects its employees to be trustworthy and respondent’s duties as a nurse include accurate record-keeping. Respondent’s repeated and deliberate dishonesty is a fundamental form of misconduct that demonstrates her unreliability. Though Respondent has a long tenure with the agency, good evaluations, and only a minor disciplinary history, those mitigating factors are heavily outweighed by the frequency and severity of her misconduct.

Observing that "Respondent failed to accept any responsibility for her false records and unsuccessfully attempted to shift the blame to others", Judge Casey recommended that the Respondent be terminated from her position.

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

 _______________________ 

A Reasonable Disciplinary Penalty Under the Circumstances -- The text of this e-book focuses on determining an appropriate disciplinary penalty to be imposed on an employee in the public service in instances where the employee has been found guilty of misconduct or incompetence. For more information click HERE. 

 

 

 

A public university’s decisions concerning the skills, expertise, and academic perspectives of applicants control when making academic appointments

A State University of New York [SUNY] adjunct professor [Plaintiff]  attributing his failure to advance within his department to his colleagues’ unfavorable view of the methodology he employed in his scholarship, brought an action in federal district court. 

Plaintiff asserted three causes of action: 

(1) A claim for damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 for violat[ing] Plaintiff’s right of freedom of speech while acting under color of state law;

(2) A claim pursuant to §1983 for injunctive relief in the form of a court order to “prevent ongoing discrimination against Keynesian economists” in violation of the First Amendment; and 

(3) An age discrimination claim under New York State’s Human Rights Law.

A federal district court granted SUNY's motion for summary judgment and Plaintiff appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, noting that it "disagreed with much of the district court’s reasoning," nonetheless sustained the lower court's ultimate disposition of the case.

Citing Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, the Circuit Court opined that Plaintiff's First Amendment claims fail because "under Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 (1968), a public university’s interest in deciding for itself what skills, expertise, and academic perspectives it wishes to prioritize in its hiring and staffing decisions outweighs [Plaintiff's] asserted interest in competing for academic positions unencumbered by university decision-makers’ assessment of his academic speech."

Affirming the federal district court's judgment, the Circuit Court said "If the Supreme Court’s (and this Court’s) enthusiastic endorsement of the First Amendment principles supporting a university’s academic freedom is to be given any practical bite, decision-makers within a university must be permitted to consider the content of an aspiring faculty member’s academic speech, and to make judgments informed by their own scholarly views, when making academic appointments."

Click HERE to access the Second Circuits decision posted on the Internet.

 

A final determination and the exhaustion of administrative remedies are typically essential to obtaining judicial review of the administrative determination

In Rosado-Ciriello, et al, [Plaintiffs] v Yonkers City School District, et al, [District], the Appellate Division considered a proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 to review a determination of the District, and to compel the District to consider "telework" as a viable work accommodation for the Plaintiffs' members in the collective bargaining unit.

Supreme Court had granted the District's cross-motion, in effect denying the Plaintiffs petition and dismissed the proceeding. Plaintiffs appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.

The Appellate Division noted "a proceeding under [Article 78] shall not be used to challenge [an administrative] determination ... which is not final," explaining that an administrative determination must be final, and thus justiciable, i.e., ripe "for judicial review."

Quoting Matter of Village of Kiryas Joel v County of Orange, 181 AD3d at 685 [internal quotation marks omitted], the Appellate Division explained "[ripeness] is a justiciability doctrine designed to prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative policies, and also to protect the agencies from judicial interference until an administrative decision has been formalized and its effects felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties". Further, said the court, an administrative determination becomes "final and binding" when two requirements are met: "completeness (finality) of the determination and exhaustion of administrative remedies."

Finding that the alleged determination was not final and binding "because it did not inflict concrete harm" and further steps, including the submission of applications with supporting documents, were available to the Plaintiffs who were seeking the "telework accommodations," the Appellate Division held that Supreme Court "properly granted the [District's] cross-motion," in effect, denying the Plaintiffs' petition, and dismissing the Article 78 proceeding.

The exhaustion of administrative remedies rule, however, "is not inflexible and need not be followed where an agency's action is challenged as either unconstitutional or wholly beyond its grant of power" [see Watergate II Apartments v Buffalo Sewer, 46 NY2d 52] or where it is alleged that the administrative agency or process followed by the administrative agency violates the individual's constitutional rights to due process [see Levine v Board of Education, 173 A.D.2d 619]."

Further, as the decision in Walton v New York State Department of Correctional Servs., 25 AD3d 999, modified, 8 NY3d at 191, notes, "an individual is not required to exhaust the available administrative remedy where such action would constitute an exercise in futility." 

In deciding the point at which petitioner's administrative remedies are exhausted, "courts must take a pragmatic approach and, when it is plain that 'resort to an administrative remedy would be futile' ... an Article 78 proceeding should be held ripe, and the statute of limitations will begin to run."

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