Former Town of Throop supervisor pleads guilty to stealing $11,000 from the town

A former Town of Throop Supervisor was arrested and pleaded guilty to stealing nearly $11,000 from the town over a two-year period.

On January 11, 2024, State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, Attorney General Letitia James and the New York State Police announced that former Town of Throop Supervisor William Tarby pleaded guilty to Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree and Official Misconduct. As part of his plea agreement, Tarby will pay full restitution and cannot seek public office again.

“William Tarby exploited his position with the town to pay off personal debts and make home improvements,” DiNapoli said. “Thanks to the work of my office, his crimes were uncovered, and he is being held accountable. I’d like to thank Attorney General James and the New York State Police for their work in partnering with us to bring him to justice.”

“Elected officials who use their authority to enrich themselves are not only violating the law, they’re violating the basic trust that New Yorkers put in them,” James said. “William Tarby stole from the people he was elected to serve, and today we are making him pay. I want to thank Comptroller DiNapoli and our partners in law enforcement for their diligent work to hold Mr. Tarby accountable.”

“Mr. Tarby violated the public trust by disregarding the law and stealing from town funds,” New York State Police Acting Superintendent Dominick L. Chiumento said, “The prosecution 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 taxpayers and the local community. I thank the State Comptroller’s Office and the Attorney General’s Office for their partnership in this investigation.”

Tarby, 58, was the town supervisor of Throop from 2004 through 2019. In 2020, DiNapoli’s office commenced an audit of the town which found financial irregularities. A subsequent investigation found that from January 2017 to December 2019, Tarby pocketed $11,000 from the town. 

Investigators determined Tarby made unauthorized cash withdrawals from town bank accounts, took cash back on checks made out to the town, and kept for himself cash paid to the town for scrap metal, fines and the sale of equipment, among other things.

As supervisor, Tarby controlled all aspects of the town’s finances and therefore was able to conceal his theft from the town board. He was the only town employee with access to certain of the town’s various accounts and was the only town employee who made cash withdrawals from those accounts.

Tarby pleaded guilty in Cayuga County Court before Judge Thomas G. Leone. Sentencing was scheduled for April 18.

###

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.

Arbitration award held irrational in the absence of evidence justifying the award

The collective bargaining agreement [CBA] between the Union and the County, among other things, set forth procedures for resolving disputes relating to claims by the Union's members for benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law §207-c. 

Members of the Union [Claimants] allegedly sustained injuries or suffered illnesses in the course of performing their duties. Each Claimant sought medical treatment on the day of his injury or illness-causing occurrence. However, they did not seek further treatment and had no out-of-pocket expenses for the treatment received. Further, the Claimants missed no time from work, beyond the time spent seeking medical treatment on the day of his occurrence, and received his regular salary or wages for such time.

Claimants submitted claims to the County for benefits under General Municipal Law §207-c, which were denied on the grounds that each Claimant had incurred "[n]o los[t] time" and/or had not suffered a "disab[ility]," and had only received medical "[e]valuation" and/or "[t]reatment." 

The Union filed a grievance with the County contending that the County had improperly denied General Municipal Law §207-c benefits to its members simply because they "did not lose any work time." Ultimately the issue was submitted to arbitration, and the parties agreed that the arbitrator would decide the issue of whether "the County violate[d] the CBA as alleged in the grievance" and, if so found, the arbitrator would determine the remedy.

The arbitrator decided that the County's denial of General Municipal Law §207-c benefits to the Claimants on the ground that "they missed no work time after receiving medical treatment violate[d] ... the CBA. The arbitrator found that the statute provides two distinct benefits — payment of salary or wages during the period of a individual's disability and payment of medical treatment necessitated by the injury or illness — and concluded that the statute "does not require a correction officer to miss time from work in order to establish entitlement to the latter benefit". 

The arbitrator's award provided that Claimants "shall have their treatment and any work time they missed on the day of the illness or injury designated as [General Municipal Law] §207-c leave and benefits."

The County sought to vacate the arbitration award pursuant to CPLR Article 75 while the Union cross-petitioned pursuant to CPLR 7510 to confirm the arbitration award. The Supreme Court granted the Union's cross-petition and the County appealed, contended that:

1. The arbitration award violated public policy because it provided General Municipal Law §207-c benefits to claimants who were purportedly not entitled to such benefits; and

2. The arbitration award was irrational.

In the words of the Appellate Division, "Judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited", citing Matter of County of Nassau v Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., 150 AD3d 1230. Noting that "Courts are bound by an arbitrator's factual findings, interpretation of the contract[,] and judgment concerning remedies", the Appellate Division said a court cannot examine the merits of an arbitration award and substitute its judgment for that of the arbitrator simply because it believes its interpretation would be the better one.

The Appellate Division held that "contrary to the County's contention" with respect to public policy, the "alleged error with the arbitrator's award is distinct from the limited, narrow circumstances in which the public policy exception applies" citing Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v Transport Workers Union of Am., Local 100, AFL-CIO, 99 NY2d 1.

The court, however, held that "the County correctly contends that the arbitration award was irrational", explaining that an arbitration award "is irrational only where there is no proof whatever to justify the award".

In this instance the Claimants did not seek payment of salary or wages pursuant to the statute as they were each paid their regular salary or wages for the time spent visiting a medical provider on the date of the occurrence and missed no time thereafter. Nor did Claimants seek payment of, or reimbursement for, the cost of the medical treatment they each received on the day of their respective occurrences, conceding that they did not sustain any out-of-pocket medical expenses.

Accordingly, the Appellate Division concluded that the arbitrator's decision to award the Claimants benefits under color of General Municipal Law §207-c was irrational, considering the fact that there was no proof that payment of wages or payment for any medical benefits by the Claimants were required.

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

 

Claiming "absolute privilege" as a defense in a lawsuit alleging school officials had defamed the plaintiff during a school board activity

Plaintiff sued the School District, the Board of Education and certain officers of the School District [collectively "Defendants"] for defamation. Plaintiff alleged that that he had been defamed when, in a workshop session prior to a school board meeting, the School District's Superintendent told the assembled school board members that "a very reliable source" told him that Plaintiff and his wife had "bought their son [a former student at the District] a shotgun for graduation" and that the Superintendent "did not respond when subsequently 'asked by a school board member if he meant that the [Plaintiff] had armed his son in preparation for an attack against the School Board.'"

Defendants moved for summary judgment, contending that the statements made to the school board by the Superintendent and the Vice President of the school board were covered by an absolute privilege". Supreme Court granted the Defendants' motions, and Plaintiff appealed.

The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's ruling, explaining "[I]t is well settled that government officials are absolutely immune for discretionary acts carried out in the course of official duties and that immunity attaches 'however erroneous or wrong [such conduct] may be, or however malicious even the motive which produced it'", citing  Crvelin v Board of Educ. of City Sch. Dist. of City of Niagara Falls, 144 AD3d 1649. In the words of the Appellate Division, "The absolute privilege defense affords complete immunity from liability for defamation to 'an official [who] is a principal executive of State or local government[,] or [who] is [otherwise] entrusted by law with administrative or executive policy-making responsibilities of considerable dimension'".

The Appellate Division noted the decision in Sindoni v Board of Educ. of Skaneateles Cent. Sch. Dist., 217 AD3d 1363, in which reference was made to a two-prong test "with respect to statements made during the discharge of those responsibilities about matters which come within the ambit of those duties". The first prong of the test "requires an examination of ... status of the speaker," and "the second prong ... the subject matter of the statement and the forum in which it is made in the light of the speaker's public duties".

In this action the Plaintiff did not dispute that the Superintendent of the district, and the Vice President of the school board, are government officials to whom the absolute privilege would apply, thus satisfying the first prong of the test referred to in Sindoni.

As to the second prong, the Appellate Division said the "question presented is whether [the two officials] were acting within the scope of their public duties" when, as alleged in the amended complaint, the Superintendent "told the assembled school board members during a workshop session that [Plaintiff] had purchased a firearm for his son", and the Vice President of the school board stated that "she had seen social media posts commenting on the situation."

The Appellate Division concluded that Defendants submitted undisputed evidence in support of the motions for summary judgment establishing, as a matter of law, that the statements of the Superintendent and the Vice President of the Board "were made during the course of the performance of their public duties".* In the words of the Appellate Division, "Specifically, the statements concerned rumors of a potential firearm-related threat to the safety of students, faculty, and board members and thus fell squarely within the scope of the duties and responsibilities of [the School Superintendent and the Vice President of the Board]."

Accordingly, the court concluded that the statements were absolutely privileged and Supreme Court had properly granted the Defendants' motions for summary judgment.

* In Hemmens v Nelson, 138 NY 517, the Court of Appeals explained "From considerations of public policy and to secure the unembarrassed and efficient administration of justice and public affairs, the law denies to the defamed party any remedy through an action for libel or slander in such cases".

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

 

Requiring and providing for administrative disciplinary hearings

Subject to certain exceptions with respect permanent employees serving a probationary period,* conducting administrative disciplinary hearings of [1] an employee of the State, as the employer, [2] an employee of a political subdivision of the State and [3] employees of other employers subject to the provisions of the Civil Service Law holding a position subject to the provisions of §75 of the Civil Service Law, §3020-a of the Education Law or a similar law, rule or regulation, or a relevant provision of a collective bargaining agreement negotiated pursuant to Article 14 of the Civil Service Law, is a condition precedent to imposing an authorized penalty on an individual found guilty of such disciplinary charges, in whole or in part, including the termination of the individual from the position or setting a lesser penalty.**

§75 of the Civil Service Law provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

§75. Removal and other disciplinary action. 1. Removal and other  disciplinary action. A person described in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b), or paragraph (c), or paragraph (d), or paragraph (e) of this subdivision shall not be removed or otherwise subjected to any disciplinary penalty provided in this section except for incompetency or misconduct shown after a hearing upon stated charges pursuant to this section.

In contrast, an employee served with disciplinary charges pursuant to §3020-a of the Education Law is required to notify the clerk or secretary of the employing board in writing whether he or she desires a hearing on such charges.***

§3020-a[2]f of the Education Law provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

f. The unexcused failure of the employee to notify the clerk or secretary of his or her desire for a hearing within ten days of the receipt of charges shall be deemed a waiver of the right to a hearing. Where an employee requests a hearing in the manner provided for by this section, the clerk or secretary of the board shall, within three working days of receipt of the employee's notice or request for a hearing, notify the commissioner [of education] of the need for a hearing. If the employee waives his or her right to a hearing the employing board shall proceed, within fifteen days, by a vote of a majority of all members of such board, to determine the case and fix the penalty, if any, to be imposed in accordance with subdivision four of this section.

§3020-a[3] of the Education Law, in pertinent part, provides as follows:

3. Hearings. a. Notice of hearing. Upon receipt of a request for a hearing in accordance with subdivision two of this section, the commissioner [of education] shall forthwith notify the American Arbitration Association (hereinafter "association") of the need for a hearing and shall request the association to provide to the commissioner [of education] forthwith a list of names of persons chosen by the association from the association's panel of labor arbitrators to potentially serve as hearing officers together with relevant biographical information on each arbitrator. Upon receipt of said list and biographical information, the commissioner [of education] shall forthwith send a copy of both simultaneously to the employing board and the employee. The commissioner [of education] shall also simultaneously notify both the employing board and the employee of each potential hearing officer's record in the last five cases of commencing and completing hearings within the time periods prescribed in this section.

* In York v McGuire, 63 NY2d 760, the Court of Appeals set out the basic rule concerning the dismissal of probationary employees in the Classified Service as follows: “After completing his or her minimum period of probation and prior to completing his or her maximum period of probation, a probationary employee can be dismissed without a hearing and without a statement of reasons, as long as there is no proof that the dismissal was done for a constitutionally impermissible purpose, or in violation of statutory or decisional law, or the decision was made in bad faith.”

** Employment has been held to be "property" within the meaning of the due process clause of the Constitution of the United States and where the appointing authority serves disciplinary charges on an individual which may result in the termination of the individual's employment, the affected employee is entitled to due process of law. Further, "Due process requires that the * * * hearing be open to the press and public" [See Fitzgerald v. Hampton, 467 F. 2d 755, 766]. 

*** N.B. §3020-a[2]d of the Education Law provides as follows:  The employee shall be terminated without a hearing, as provided for in this section, upon conviction of a sex offense, as defined in subparagraph two of paragraph b of subdivision seven-a of section three hundred five of this chapter. To the extent this section applies to an employee acting as a school administrator or supervisor, as defined in subparagraph three of paragraph b of subdivision seven-b of section three hundred five of this chapter, such employee shall be terminated without a hearing, as provided for in this section, upon conviction of a felony offense defined in subparagraph two of paragraph b of subdivision seven-b of section three hundred five of this chapter. [Emphasis supplied.]

 ==================

The Discipline Book, - A concise guide to disciplinary actions involving public employees in New York State and its political subdivisions set out in an e-book. For more information and access to a free excerpt from this e-book, click HERE.

 

State Department and Agency and Local Government and School District Audits released by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli

State Department and Agency Audits

On January 8, 2024, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following State Department and Agency audits were issued.

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

 

Homes and Community Renewal – Division of Housing and Community Renewal – Physical and Financial Conditions at Selected Mitchell-Lama Developments Located Outside New York City (2022-S-46)
The Mitchell-Lama Housing program (Program) was created to provide affordable rental and cooperative housing to middle-income families. In exchange for low-interest mortgage loans and real property tax exemptions, the Program required limitations on profit, income limits for tenants, and supervision by the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR). From a sample of five developments, auditors found that DHCR was not adequately overseeing financial and physical conditions. Management at all five sampled developments misspent funds, and management at two of the sampled developments failed to provide a safe and clean living environment for their residents, where auditors observed hazardous conditions.

 

Department of Financial Services – Virtual Currency Licensing (2022-S-18)
The Department of Financial Services (DFS) oversees the activities of nearly 3,000 financial institutions, including 21 virtual currency licensees with assets totaling more than $175 billion. Auditors found limited assurance that DFS is adequately performing its oversight responsibilities related to the application for and supervision of virtual currency licenses in the state, creating the risk that licenses could be granted to applicants whose financial stability has not been thoroughly verified, or that, once licensed, businesses may not maintain financial or cybersecurity standards. Not all license applicants completed a fingerprinting process that DFS uses to assess backgrounds of major shareholder and officers prior to application approval; DFS could not support its verification of applicants’ tax obligations; licensees were not always in compliance with cybersecurity regulations; and DFS did not always ensure that licensees submitted all required financial reports used to assess the safety and soundness of their business operations.

 

Hudson River–Black River Regulating District – Security Over Critical Systems (2023-S-24)
The Hudson River–Black River Regulating District’s (District) mission is to construct, maintain, and operate reservoirs in the upper Hudson River and Black River watershed for the purpose of regulating the flow of streams or rivers when required by public welfare. The District must adhere to the Office of Information Technology Services’ policies, which include applying the correct security controls for information used by the District, monitoring systems, and managing the risks of security exposure or compromise; as well as the Data Security Standards (DSS) established by the Payment Card Industry (PCI) Security Standards Council, which address security measures associated with credit card data. Auditors found that, overall, the District has demonstrated effort and timeliness in addressing security issues as they arise and that the District has generally taken appropriate steps to secure processes and systems used to accept credit card payments but identified that documentation of certain policies and procedures could be improved to better meet PCI DSS requirements.

 

Department of Health – Patient Safety Center Activities and Handling of Revenues (Follow-Up) (2023-F-16)
The Patient Safety Center (PSC) was established within the Department of Health (DOH) for the purpose of maximizing patient safety, reducing medical errors, and improving overall quality of health care. Penalties can be imposed against facilities and individuals in violation of the Public Health Law, a portion of which is deposited into a special revenue PSC account. A prior audit, issued in March 2021, found a lack of formal guidance governing certain enforcement and record-keeping practices as well as a need for improved oversight of PSC revenues and related activities to ensure that the PSC account is receiving all revenue due. The follow-up found DOH implemented all four of the initial recommendations.

 

Department of Civil Service – New York State Health Insurance Program – Payments by Beacon Health Options for Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services for Ineligible Members (Follow-Up) (2023-F-30)
The Department of Civil Service (Civil Service) administers the New York State Health Insurance Program (NYSHIP) and contracts with Carelon Behavioral Health (Carelon), formerly Beacon Health Options, to administer the mental health and substance use (MHSU) program for the Empire Plan, NYSHIP’s primary health insurance plan. Civil Service is responsible for maintaining the New York Benefits and Accountability System (NYBEAS), the system of record for member enrollment and eligibility information. A prior audit, issued in May 2022, identified $3.21 million in overpayments for MHSU services, which resulted primarily from retroactive disenrollments (disenrollments entered into NYBEAS after the date the change in eligibility had taken effect). The follow-up found Carelon had recovered nearly $726,000 of the $3.21 million in overpaid claims identified, and Civil Service and Carelon implemented quarterly reconciliations of eligibility information between NYBEAS and Carelon’s system to help ensure claims are paid only for eligible members. Of the initial report’s four audit recommendations, three were implemented and one was partially implemented.

 

Department of Health – Medicaid Program: Improper Payments for Services Related to Ordering, Prescribing, Referring, or Attending Providers No Longer Participating in the Medicaid Program (Follow-Up) (2023-F-24)
Beginning January 1, 2014, New York’s Medicaid program required that physicians and other health care professionals who order, prescribe, refer, or attend (OPRA) Medicaid services be appropriately screened and enrolled in Medicaid and have an “active” provider status. A prior audit, issued in April 2022, found that the Department of Health’s (DOH) eMedNY claims processing system edits designed to prevent payments for services with an inactive OPRA provider were flawed, and Medicaid made $965 million in payments for 2.3 million OPRA services by physicians and professionals who were no longer actively enrolled in Medicaid on the service date. The follow-up found DOH recovered less than 1% of the $965 million and DOH had not enhanced eMedNY controls to more promptly identify OPRA providers not actively enrolled in Medicaid and deny the related claims. Of the initial report’s six audit recommendations, one was implemented and five were not implemented.

 

Local Government and School District Audits

On January 8, 2024, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following Local Government and School District audits were issued.

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

Cicero Fire District – Financial Condition (Onondaga County) 

The board did not ensure that financial reports it received were timely, accurate, and contained the necessary information it needed to properly monitor the district’s financial condition and fund balance. The board did not: pay the recommended 2022 contribution of $121,981 into the district’s length of service award program; effectively monitor available fund balance, resulting in the unrestricted fund balance deficit increasing to as much as $54,423 during the audit period; or effectively monitor budget-to-actual results as officials spent $300,884 more than budgeted over the last three completed fiscal years. The board also did not develop long-term financial and capital plans or a fund balance policy or obtain an independent audit of the district’s 2021 and 2022 financial statements, as required. 

 

Greenville Fire District – Investment Program (Orange County)

District officials developed a comprehensive investment program but did not effectively manage the program. During the 17-month audit period, the district earned $539 from money on deposit in the district’s checking and money market accounts, which had average available funds for investing of $845,365. Had officials considered other legally permissible investment options, the district may have earned an additional $38,700 more than earned. Officials did not: develop investment procedures to convey management’s expectations for managing the district’s investment program, solicit interest rate quotes; or consider other legally permissible investment options. 

 

Oneida County – Court and Trust

The county commissioner of finance generally established adequate procedures, maintained appropriate records and properly reported court and trust funds. The records maintained by the county clerk and surrogate’s court were up to date and complete and we noted no material discrepancies.   

 

Woodbourne Fire District – Board Oversight (Sullivan County)

The board did not provide adequate oversight of the district’s financial operations. The board did not: ensure the treasurer/secretary maintained basic accounting records and reports or provide regular financial reports to the board; perform a thorough audit of all claims prior to payment; adopt realistic budgets or maintain reasonable levels of fund balance as the district’s Dec. 31, 2022 fund balance was enough to fund nearly two and a half years of expenditures; develop and adopt policies and procedures for the district’s financial operations, including controls for wire transfers, online banking, investments, procurement, travel and conferences, fund balance, reserves, credit card use and capital assets; or transparently set aside funds for future building and equipment needs.

 

Chautauqua County – Financial Condition

The North Chautauqua County Water District (district) board, county legislature and other county officials did not adopt realistic budgets, routinely monitor the district’s financial operations or take appropriate actions to maintain the district’s fiscal stability. Auditors found county officials: overestimated revenues by a total of $1.6 million, an average of $410,000 or 29% each year, from 2019 through 2022; did not enforce collection of water usage billed to Chadwick Bay Intermunicipal Water Works (CBI), resulting in a balance owed of $1.4 million; spent $5.2 million from the general fund for district operations and did not repay the general fund, as required, because the district did not have sufficient funds; and did not thoroughly review budget-to-actual reports and did not prepare cash flow analyses. In addition, the district had a growing negative cash balance totaling over $5 million as of Dec. 31, 2022, was experiencing, on average, $150,000 operating deficits each year, and owed the general fund $5.2 million, plus related interest. 

 

Hamilton Fulton Montgomery Board of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) – Investment Program

BOCES officials did not develop and manage a comprehensive investment program. During the 12-month audit period, BOCES held $7.4 million in money market accounts and earned interest totaling $105,000, while also holding $4.6 million in non-interest-bearing accounts. Had officials considered other investment options, BOCES may have earned $448,000 in investment income. Auditors found officials did not: adopt a comprehensive investment policy as required by state law; solicit interest rate quotes or invest available funds in financial institutions that offered a competitive yield; or prepare monthly cash flow forecasts to monitor and estimate funds available for investment. 

 

Saranac Central School District – Investment Program (Clinton County)

District officials did not develop and manage a comprehensive investment program. During the 22-month audit period, the district had an average of $12.4 million in operating and debt service funds available for investing and earned $154,099 in investment earnings. Had officials utilized their investment accounts more effectively, the district may have earned $356,452 in investment earnings during the audit period. Officials did not solicit interest rate quotes or prepare monthly cash flow forecasts to estimate funds available for investment. 

 

Saranac Central School District – Student State Aid (Clinton County)

District officials did not properly claim state aid for special education students who received services in 10-month public and summer placements. As a result, as of April 30, 2023, the district will not benefit from $28,832 in state aid that was not claimed. The district had not claimed an additional $224,976 in aid, of which $195,844 would have already been received if claimed in a timely manner. Officials also claimed and received $57,650 in aid to which the district was not entitled. District officials did not establish adequate procedures to ensure state aid was properly claimed for all eligible special education students or provide oversight of the officials who prepared and submitted state aid claims. 

 

Saranac Central School District – Tuition Billing and Collections (Clinton County)

District officials did not properly bill and collect tuition for nonresident foster care students enrolled in the district. As of March 27, 2023, the district had not collected $59,336 of tuition billed and did not bill $4,345 for tuition due. As a result, the district had not been paid $63,681 of the $107,167 in tuition owed to the district during the 2019-20 through 2021-22 school years. District officials did not establish adequate procedures or provide sufficient oversight to ensure tuition bills were prepared and issued to the school districts of origin in a timely manner for all nonresident foster care students enrolled at the district or maintain a receivable control account in the district’s accounting records to ensure that tuition billed had been paid. 

 

Town of Sheridan – Disbursements (Chautauqua County)

Claims and payroll-related disbursements were not always adequately supported, properly approved or for town purposes. Of the 755 claims totaling $1.2 million auditors reviewed, 225 totaling $590,622 lacked supporting documentation indicating that they were received and for appropriate town purposes; 234 claims totaling $313,112 were not audited or approved by the board; 194 totaling $531,960 lacked supporting documentation and were not audited or approved by the board, and 50 totaling $27,124 were not for a town purpose. In addition, the highway superintendent and a highway employee were paid $12,858 more than the board authorized, and the town clerk was paid an additional $12,775 to perform some of the town supervisor’s financial duties and act as a bookkeeper, which is an incompatible position or duty. Lastly, ten individuals were paid $372,636 to exclusively conduct non-town work related to an intermunicipal agreement, and the former town supervisor was paid $22,500 to supervise these individuals doing the work, all without board approval. 

 

Town of Sheridan – Shared Services Costs (Chautauqua County)

The town was not reimbursed equitably for shared service costs related to an intermunicipal agreement (IMA) that created the Chadwick Bay Intermunicipal Water Works (CBI). Because the board did not monitor the IMA’s operations and labor costs, town taxpayers paid $125,736 to provide services to customers in three other towns and a village. Officials also did not collect about $21,000 from the CBI for town office space the group uses. In addition, the board and former town supervisor donated 6.2 acres of town land to Chautauqua County (county) without conducting a cost-benefit analysis or evaluating whether the conveyance was in the taxpayers’ best financial interest. Although the county installed a water storage tank on the land and installed water lines, there is no existing water district or documented plans to establish a water district near these improvements; therefore, it provides no benefit to town taxpayers. 

 

Village of Wappingers Falls – Board Oversight (Dutchess County)

The board did not provide adequate oversight over financial operations and capital projects. As a result, the board did not have sufficient information to oversee financial operations and capital projects. Auditors found the board did not: ensure it received adequate monthly financial reports or review bank reconciliations; ensure bond anticipation note proceeds were properly used; ensure the village’s Annual Financial Report was properly filed, as required; annually audit the treasurer’s records, as required; adopt a multiyear capital plan; maintain capital project records, including written contractual agreements; or develop mitigating controls for the lack of segregation of financial duties.

 

###