Selected items posted on blogs during the week ending August 29, 2025

Elevating Constituent Services with Connected Experiences Agencies' communications tools are often disjointed, contributing to fragmented services rather than providing a seamless, unified platform that improves the constituent experience. Governments can modernize their communications infrastructure to unify these tools and create connected experiences, which lead to more convenient and personalized services for residents. DOWNLOAD

Missouri First in Nation to Eliminate Capital Gains Tax The exemption applies to profits from stocks, real estate and crypto at an estimated $625 million cost to state revenue. READ MORE

Transforming Water Resource Management As climate pressures intensify, state governments need better tools to manage water more effectively, equitably, and sustainably. Powered by the largest constellation of Earth observation (EO) satellites in orbit and a flexible cloud-based platform, learn how your agency can gain continual and detailed insights into changes across any region. DOWNLOAD

To Confront Homelessness, Base Policies on Outcomes, not Impulse By tying payments for services to results, a successful program in Anchorage demonstrates the impact of a data-driven focus on accountability. READ MORE

Nevada Rolls Out Retirement Plan for Workers Without Other Options The state’s Roth IRA program has signed up more than 20,500 employees and will soon mandate employer participation if no other plan exists. READ MORE

Endpoint Security Securing end-user devices — smartphones, laptops, tablets, and other mobile and IoT endpoints — has become a hot-button issue for IT leaders in government and beyond. READ MORE

Neutralize Cyber Threats, 24-7: What Recent Attacks Reveal About Response Gaps Learn how attackers are quietly moving through government IT systems—and how agencies are spotting them sooner with 24/7 detection. This webinar from Government Technology and Sophos breaks down real incidents and shows how agencies are strengthening detection and response. REGISTER

Avoiding the Fiscal Cliff through Modern Revenue Collection Revenue operations may not be high profile, but they’re but they are foundational to fiscal stability. Join Government Technology for a live webinar on how smarter payment systems can help agencies strengthen revenue operations, reduce risk, and build lasting financial resilience. REGISTER

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli posted local government and school audits on the Internet

On August 28, 2025, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following local government and school audits were issued and posted on the Internet.

Click of the test highlighted in color to assess the audit.

Schenectady County – Investment Program

While the county’s investments were generally legal, safe and liquid, county officials did not develop and manage a comprehensive investment program. Officials also did not monitor investments, formally solicit interest rate quotes or consider other legally permissible investment options. In addition, officials did not create a comprehensive investment program with written procedures and did not prepare monthly cash flow forecasts or otherwise monitor investments to estimate funds available for investment. As a result, the county maintained most of its available-for-investment funds (monthly average of $112 million) in a money market account, earning $1.8 million, at a banking institution earning lower than other interest rates available. Had officials managed a comprehensive investment program, solicited interest rate quotes and deposited funds into a bank account or an investment option already used by the county, officials may have realized additional earnings ranging from $5.1 to $10.6 million.

Town of Lorraine – Town Supervisor’s Records and Reports (Jefferson County)
The supervisor did not maintain complete, accurate and up-to-date accounting records and reports. As a result, the board lacked reliable information necessary to manage the town’s financial operations. The supervisor did not identify and resolve discrepancies between recorded cash balances and adjusted bank balances, in part, because she did not perform bank reconciliations in an accurate manner. As of Dec. 31, 2023, three bank account cash balances totaling $105,091 were not included in the accounting records and the remaining three bank accounts’ adjusted bank balances exceeded the recorded cash balances by $513,735. Auditors identified about $440,000 in recordkeeping errors that contributed to this difference between the cash in the bank and the records.

Shoreham-Wading River Central School District – Capital Assets (Suffolk County)
District officials did not properly record and account for all of the district’s capital assets. As a result, the district has an increased risk that its capital assets could be lost, stolen or misused. The board of education did not designate a property control manager. Therefore, the district did not have a specific person who was responsible for tracking capital assets and ensuring that capital asset information was complete, up-to-date, accurate and useful. District officials did not properly segregate asset inventory duties among employees, and officials did not monitor the work of those who performed these duties. Auditors reviewed 30 purchases made during the audit period, which included 96 purchased assets, and determined that 78 assets with a combined acquisition value of $419,538 (87%) were not included in the district’s inventory list.

Essex County Industrial Development Agency – Project Approval and Monitoring
The board did not properly approve and monitor projects that received financial assistance. The board did not develop and adopt, by resolution, uniform criteria for the evaluation and selection for each category of projects to be provided financial assistance, including the preparation of a written cost-benefit analysis (CBA), as required by law. Of the nine approved projects reviewed, a written CBA was not prepared for four of the projects, and the CBAs prepared for the other five projects did not include all the information required by law. As a result, the board could not properly assess these projects, before their approval, to ensure the benefit to the community would be a sufficient return for the financial assistance to be provided.

Town of Lewis – Records and Reports (Lewis County)
The supervisor did not maintain complete and accurate accounting records and reports. As a result, the board lacked reliable records and reports to effectively manage the town’s financial operations. The supervisor did not provide oversight of the clerk duties related to maintaining the accounting records, which resulted in errors and deficiencies in the town’s accounting records. The supervisor also did not provide the board with complete and accurate monthly reports during the audit period. The board also did not audit, or contract with an independent public accountant to audit the supervisor’s records for 2023.

Town of Wethersfield – Capital Project (Wyoming County)
The board did not properly plan for or manage the department building capital project. Specifically, the board did not develop and adopt a written multiyear capital plan or create and follow a capital project budget. As a result, the board spent approximately $243,500 of town funds to purchase property and goods and services that may not be used. The property that was purchased more than five years ago remains undeveloped and officials have no formal plans for it. Although officials paid $85,000 about two years ago for precast concrete wall blocks, officials have not scheduled a delivery date for the wall blocks and owe an additional $37,000 once delivered. In addition, the board improperly established a $1 million reserve fund in the town’s general fund. Although the town attorney notified the board in October 2023 that the board did not properly establish a capital reserve fund, the board did not take appropriate action to remedy the situation.

Fredonia Central School District – Lead Testing and Reporting (Chautauqua County)
District officials did not properly identify, report or implement needed remediation to reduce lead exposure in all potable water outlets as required by state law and Department of Health regulations. Auditors determined 178 of the 665 (27%) water outlets identified were not sampled or properly exempted by district officials. This occurred because district officials did not have a sampling plan to identify all water outlets for testing or exemption. District officials also did not have a remedial action plan that detailed which water outlets they exempted and how they would be secured against use, and what remedial actions were planned or enacted. Because there is no information on the lead levels of the 178 water outlets not sampled for testing, auditors were unable to determine whether officials identified and remediated all water outlets that would have required it.

###

Mandamus to compel performance is an extraordinary remedy that is available only in limited circumstances

The extraordinary remedy of mandamus* is available in limited circumstances only to compel the performance of a purely ministerial act which does not involve the exercise of official discretion or judgment, and only when a clear legal right to the relief has been demonstrated" (see Matter of Gonzalez v Village of Port Chester, 109 AD3d 614).

The Petitioner in this action alleged that her residence sustained property damage on June 17, 2022. On June 15, 2023, she submitted a notice of claim to the New York City Comptroller's Office, [Respondent] indicating that the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York and the Comptroller's Office were the agencies involved in her claim. 

The Comptroller's Office rejected Petitioner's notice of claim as late.  Petitioner then commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 in the nature of mandamus to compel, among others things, the Respondent to accept the late notice of claim. 

In an order and judgment, the Supreme Court, in effect, granted Respondent's cross-motion and dismissed the proceeding insofar as asserted against the City Respondents. Petitioner appealed Supreme Court's ruling.

Sustaining the Supreme Court's ruling, the Appellate Division opined the Petitioner was not entitled to mandamus relief compelling Respondent to accept the late notice of claim as timely, noting that "Petitioner's late notice of claim served without leave of court is a nullity".

* A writ of mandamus is one of a number of the ancient “common law” writs and is granted by a court to compel an official to perform acts that such an official is duty-bound to perform. Other such ancients writs include the writ of prohibition, issued by a higher tribunal to a lower tribunal to "prohibit" the adjudication of a matter then pending before the lower tribunal on the grounds that the lower tribunal "lacked jurisdiction"; the writ of certiorari  compelling a lower court to send its record of a case to the higher tribunal for review by the higher tribunal; and the writ of  “quo warranto,” which requires a person or body to show by what warrant, office or franchise, held, claimed, or exercised, with respect to that individual or entity performing a particular act or omission. New York State's Civil Practice Law and Rules [CPLR] sets out the modern equivalents of the surviving ancient writs.

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

Communications made by "individuals participating in a public function, such as judicial, legislative, or executive proceedings" are protected by an absolute privilege

In an action to recover damages for defamation,* Plaintiff appealed an order of a Supreme Court which granted that branch of the motion submitted by two Defendants [hereinafter Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 respectively] for summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiff's causes of action to recover damages for alleged slander per se and libel per se insofar as asserted against Defendant 1. 

Two defendants, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, moved for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action to recover damages for slander per se and libel per se insofar as asserted against Defendant 1. Supreme Court issued an order granting that branch of the Defendants' motion. The Plaintiff appealed.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order "insofar as appealed from, with costs".

The Appellate Division's decision reports that Defendant 1 was, at relevant times, a council member for the Town and, among others, filed a complaint against Plaintiff with the Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District alleging that Plaintiff represented a party in a taxpayer action commenced against Defendant 1 and the Town. Plaintiff subsequently became counsel for the Town while still representing the party in the taxpayer action. The Attorney Grievance Committee, First Judicial Department [Committee] ultimately disposed of the complaint by issuing an admonition to the Plaintiff.

In addition, the Appellate Division's ruling notes that Defendant 1, among others, released a media advisory to members of the press and to private individuals stating that Plaintiff had been "reprimanded" by the Committee. Further, during a press conference in front of the Town Hall, Defendant 1 stated, among other things, that the Plaintiff had been admonished and had engaged in "illicit quid pro quo."** 

The Appellate Division noted that communications made by "individuals participating in a public function, such as judicial, legislative, or executive proceedings" are protected by an absolute privilege", citing Toker v Pollak, 44 NY2d 211. Further, said the court, "Absolute privilege is based upon the personal position or status of the speaker and is limited to the speaker's official participation in the processes of government", citing Colantonio v Mercy Med. Ctr., 135 AD3d 686'.

The Appellate Division also noted that Defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action to recover damages for slander per se and libel per se insofar as asserted against Defendant 1 was properly granted by Supreme Court [albeit for reasons different than those relied upon by the Supreme Court]. 

In the words of the Appellate Division, "Assuming without deciding that the challenged statements constitute actionable defamatory statements, [Defendant 1] established, prima facie, that he published the challenged statements while acting in his role as a council member for the Town and was therefore protected by absolute privilege" citing Riggio v County of Nassau, 218 AD3d at 503 and other decisions.

In contrast, citing Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, the Court noted that Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact".

* In stating causes of action to recover damages for slander per se and libel per se Plaintiff alleged that the statements in a media advisory and at the press conference were defamatory per se. 

** Illicit quid pro quo refers to illegal or unethical exchanges, usually done in secret, in order to gain an unfair advantage.

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

An applicant seeking disability retirement benefits bears the burden of demonstrating a permanent incapacity from performing the duties of the position

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Trustees of the New York City Employees' Retirement System [Board] which denied the Petitioner's application for disability retirement benefits and the Medical Board of the New York City Employees' Retirement System appeal a judgment of the Supreme Court, which granted the Petitioner's amended petition and annulled the Board's determination, the Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's ruling "on the law, with costs," denied Petitioner's amended petition and dismissed the proceeding "on the merits".

Petitioner had applied for disability retirement benefits as a result of two work-related incidents claiming that as a result of the injuries he sustained in those incidents, he could no longer work.* In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Trustees of the New York City Employees' Retirement System [Board] which denied the Petitioner's application for disability retirement benefits and the Medical Board of the New York City Employees' Retirement System appealed a judgment of the Supreme Court, which granted the Petitioner's amended petition and annulled the Board's determination.

The Medical Board had reviewed Petitioner's applications and medical documentation a number of times and ultimately issued its fourth report, which was substantively similar to the first three reports but more detailed, finding the Petitioner was not disabled. Petitioner then commenced the instant proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 to review determination of the Board of Trustees.

In the words of the Appellate Division, "An applicant seeking disability retirement benefits bears the burden of demonstrating that she [or he] is permanently incapacitated from performing her [or his] job duties", citing Matter of Hannon v New York State Dept. of Human Rights, 170 AD3d 1175 and other decisions.  The Court also noted that "The Medical Board determines whether a member applying for disability retirement benefits is disabled, and the Board of Trustees is bound by the Medical Board's finding that an applicant is, or is not, disabled for duty" (See Matter of Russell v New York City Employees' Retirement Sys., 155 AD3d 1046).

The Appellate Division held that "a Medical Board's disability determination will not be disturbed if the determination is based on substantial evidence", citing Borenstein v New York City Employees' Retirement Sys., 88 NY2d 756, noting that "Substantial evidence in this context means some credible evidence", citing Matter of Maxwell v New York City Employees' Retirement Sys., 210 AD3d 1095,

The Appellate Division's decision also noted that "the Medical Board's determination that the Petitioner did not establish a disability as a result of the two work-related incidents was supported by credible evidence and the record indicates that "the Medical Board considered all of the medical evidence submitted by the [Petitioner] and interviewed and physically examined the[Petitioner] three times". In addition the Court's decision states that:

1. "The record further demonstrates that the [Petitioner's] right hip injury was the result of a preexisting condition and was not caused by the two work-related incidents"; and 

2. Petitioner's carpal tunnel syndrome was not considered a disability as the Petitioner chose to forego surgery.

Accordingly, the Appellate Division found that the Board of Trustees' determination adopting the recommendation of the Medical Board was not irrational or arbitrary and capricious and the Supreme Court should have denied the amended petition and dismissed the proceeding on the merits.

* The Petitioner did not have 10 years of service credit at the time of his application for disability retirement benefits and, therefore, was required to demonstrate that he was "physically . . . incapacitated for performance of gainful employment as the natural and proximate result of an accident not caused by his own willful negligence sustained in the performance of his duties" (See Retirement and Social Security Law §605[b][3]).

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