Unsuccessful candidate for election to the Board of Education challenges the certification of another candidate seeking election to the position

Citing 8 NYCRR 275.16, the New York State Commissioner of Education Betty A. Rosa [Commissioner] noted that 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 of Education for good cause shown. 

In this appeal to the Commissioner challenging the seating of the individual designated the successful candidate elected to the School Board, the Commissioner noted that an individual or entity possibly adversely affected by a determination in favor of the Petitioner in the action is a necessary party and must be joined as such.

The Commissioner then explained that: 

1. Joinder requires that all necessary parties be clearly named as a respondent in the caption of the petition; and

2. All necessary parties must be served with "a copy of the notice of petition and petition, informing the party to appear in the appeal and to answer the allegations contained in the petition".

Further, the Commissioner noted that "In an appeal regarding a school district election, the petitioner must join the district’s board of education as well as 'each person whose right to hold office is disputed.'" [Citations omitted.]

Petitioner commenced the instant appeal by serving the district clerk of the school district, which constitutes timely service upon school district and the district clerk. However, Petitioner did not timely serve the challenged successful candidate as the record indicates that the challenged successful candidate was served with Plaintiff's petition "more than 30 days from the election and certification of the results". 

As the Petitioner did not identify "good cause" for Petitioner's failure to timely serve the successful candidate, Dr. Rosa said considering the fact that the Petitioner disputes the successful candidate's right to hold office she was "constrained to dismiss the [Petitioner's] appeal as untimely."

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

Court rejects Petitioner's argument that delays in commencing the hearing prejudiced him as any delay was caused by Petitioner's own action

The New York City Housing Authority [NYCHA], after a Civil Service Law §75 disciplinary hearing, found the Petitioner guilty of 14 of the 15 charges of employee misconduct and incompetence leveled against him. The disciplinary penalty imposed: termination from employment with NYCHA. 

Petitioner filed a CPLR Article 78 challenging the NYCHA's decision contending the disciplinary charges were untimely. The Appellate Division unanimously confirmed NYCHA decision and the penalty imposed on Petitioner, ruling that the disciplinary proceedings were timely commenced pursuant to Civil Service Law §75(4) as Petitioner was served with the amended charges within 18 months of the earliest of the various charged incidents of the employee's alleged misconduct. The Court also rejected Petitioner's argument that any delay in commencing the hearing prejudiced him, observing that any the delay in holding the disciplinary hearing "was caused by [Petitioner's] own violation of NYCHA's vaccine policy."

The Appellate Division opined that "substantial evidence supported the trial officer's report sustaining 14 of the 15 charges of employee misconduct and incompetence leveled against [the Petitioner]." The Appellate Division also noted that NYCHA submitted testimony from Petitioner's former supervisors, along with multiple counseling memoranda, which showed that Petitioner repeatedly refused to comply with their directives and to perform the tasks assigned to him and testimony in the record "established that [Petitioner] became argumentative and hostile when asked to complete tasks, to the extent that his behavior required reports to NYCHA's Office of Safety and Security."

The Court also reject Petitioner's claims that NYCHA witnesses' were allegedly bias finding that "there exists no basis to disturb the credibility determinations of the trial officer".

Addressing the penalty imposed on Petitioner, dismissal from his position with NYCHA, the Appellate Division said "Termination of [Petitioner's] employment does not shock one's sense of fairness as it is not so disproportionate to the seriousness of the multiple charges of misconduct and incompetency proven" and Petitioner submitted no evidence showing that "he was terminated after engaging in protected activity, and the record was clear that he was discharged due to his own incompetence and misconduct."

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

Educator served with disciplinary charges alleging that she had directed a racially charged insult at a woman off school grounds

A tenured teacher [Petitioner] employed by the New York City Department of Education [DOE] was served with disciplinary charges alleging she [1] directed a racially charged insult at a woman off school grounds and [2] exhibited alleged discriminatory conduct directed at students in her classroom. 

Following a disciplinary hearing held pursuant to Education Law Section 3020-a, the Hearing Officer sustained the charges and specifications related to the language involving the woman uttered off school ground and recorded in a video of the incident and the Petitioner's discriminatory actions discovered in the course of DOE's investigation of the Plaintiff classroom conduct. 

Based on these findings, the Hearing Officer concluded that the Petitioner was guilty of the charges served on her and that Petitioner should be terminated from her position notwithstanding the absence of evidence of any prior discriminatory actions by Petitioner in Petitioner's employment record. 

Petitioner appealed but the Appellate Division, sustaining the Hearing Officer's finding and the penalty imposed, opined that the penalty of termination was supported by the record, was not disproportionate to the offense, and does not shock one's sense of fairness. 

In the words of the Appellate Division, "Supreme Court properly denied [Petitioner's] amended petition to vacate the arbitration award", and indicated that the Hearing Officer properly considered:

(1) "the gravity of the charges; 

(2) "the fact that [Petitioner] had recently participated in implicit bias training and received a copy of Chancellors Regulation A-830 which articulated DOE's anti-discrimination policy, and thus informed [Petitioner] of her duty to conduct herself professionally both inside and outside of the classroom; 

(3) "that [Petitioner] should have known that her behavior would violate the DOE anti-discrimination policy which might result in disciplinary action; and 

(4) "that [Petitioner] failed to demonstrate remorse or take responsibility for her conduct". 

The Appellate Division opined that "Notwithstanding [Petitioner's] effective record during her approximately 18-year career with DOE the penalty does not shock the conscience. Having received prior notice of the consequences of discriminatory behavior, Petitioner nonetheless engaged in a pattern of inappropriate conduct unbecoming a teacher."

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

New York Department of State Announces Opening of $8 Million Local Government Efficiency Program

 

Captioned "Competitive Grant Opportunity Incentivizes Municipalities Aiming to Reduce Costs and Lower Tax Burden", on December 8, 2025, The New York Department of State announced that its popular Local Government Efficiency Grant (LGEG) program is again available to municipalities with innovative ideas for supporting a more affordable New York. Applicants may apply for funding to streamline government operations and services which reduce current or future costs, resulting in savings for local property taxpayers. The $8 million initiative incentivizes two or more local governments to team up to apply to plan for or implement shared services, consolidations, and dissolutions. “Incentivizing municipalities to find new efficiencies is a great way to create more affordable communities,” said Secretary of State Walter T. Mosley. “The Local Government Efficiency program has shown the capacity to offer great economic returns for localities and expanding it will bring even more savings to New Yorkers.” Through the LGEG, DOS is also aiming to assist local governments to address significant current and emerging challenges. In this current funding round, Priority Points will be given to: Regional Projects; Regional or Local Projects being implemented as part of a previous LGE planning grant or that was included in a Countywide Shared Services Initiative (CWSSI) plan; or Regional or Local Projects that aim to address: Information Technology Services (ITS), including Cybersecurity; Emergency Services; Countywide or Multi-County Code Enforcement or Municipal Planning; Water and/or Wastewater Management Systems; or Clean Energy Initiatives. Some Recent Winning Communities Include: Town of Hunter partnering with Greene County, the Villages of Hunter and Tannersville, and the Hunter-Tannersville Central School District: Mountaintop Community and Municipal Services Center - $1,250,000 Town of Carmel partnering with the Bedford, Bronxville, Eastchester, Mamaroneck, and Ossining Police Departments: Shared Police Communications Software - $1,200,000 Orleans County: Orleans County EMS Study $52,859 Tompkins County: Rapid Medical Response Team pilot program - $629,779 Brockport Fire District partnering with the Bergen and Churchville Fire Departments, and the Murray Joint and Hamlin-Morton-Walker Fire Districts: Mutual Aid College Student Bunk-In Program: $490,500 The LGEG Request for Applications (RFA) and additional information may be found on the DOS website at: dos.ny.gov/needtopost. RFAs must be submitted by Wednesday, February 4, 2026 at 4 pm.

Municipal audits posted posted on the Internet by the New York State Comptroller

On December 5, 2025 New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli posted the following local government audits on the Internet. 

Click the text highlighted in color to access the text of the audit.

Town of Lockport – Fuel Inventory (Niagara County)

The superintendent did not properly safeguard and monitor fuel usage. He also did not properly oversee the Highway Department clerk’s work. Due to the lack of controls and oversight of fuel operations, billing errors occurred and the potential for inappropriate use of town fuel to occur and go undetected was significant.

Town of Lockport – Asphalt Millings Inventory (Niagara County)

The superintendent did not properly monitor and account for the millings inventory or unscreened millings sales. As a result, there is an increased risk of fraud, abuse and misuse of millings inventories and sales revenue to occur and go undetected. The superintendent also did not update the sale price of millings in accordance with the current average market price. As a result, 483 tons of unscreened millings that were sold for $929 should have been sold for $9,875 based on average market prices at the time of the sale. In addition, because millings are a lower-cost alternative to stone and other materials used for roadway and other town projects, officials may incur added costs if the town’s millings inventory is depleted.

Town of Lockport – Building Permit Fee Collections (Niagara County)

The inspector did not properly manage permit fee collections by not always applying the board-approved permit fee and not maintaining accurate records. As a result, the town may not have received all revenues due to the town, and permit fees collected may have been lost, misused or misappropriated.

Town of Lockport – Culvert Pipe Fee Collections (Niagara County)

The superintendent did not ensure application fees and installation fees were properly collected and recorded. Therefore, officials cannot verify the accuracy or ensure accountability of the collection of those fees. This significantly increased the risk that collections could be lost, unaccounted for or misappropriated without detection.

Town of Guilderland – Information Technology (IT) (Albany County)

The town board and officials did not monitor employee internet use or establish adequate controls to safeguard IT systems. In addition, the board did not adopt an IT contingency plan to help minimize the risk of data loss or a serious interruption of services, periodically test backups or provide IT security awareness training. As a result, town officials cannot be assured that town IT assets are secured and protected against unauthorized use, access and loss, and there is an increased risk that officials could lose important data and suffer a serious interruption in operations.

Town of Guilderland – Sales Tax Revenue Allocation (Albany County)

Town officials did not properly budget for and allocate sales tax revenue totaling $14.8 million during the audit period. As a result, taxpayer inequities occurred. Auditors found that town taxpayers who lived outside the village did not receive all the benefits they should have from the county sales tax distributions, while taxpayers with real property located within the village received an extra benefit.

Town of Willsboro – Town Clerk/Tax Collector (Essex County)

The town clerk/tax collector did not properly record, deposit, report and remit collections and misappropriated more than $29,000 in collections during the audit period. The clerk concealed her misappropriation of collections by not recording collections or recording them for less than the amount received, making unsupported cash deposits, not reporting and remitting collections to the supervisor and state agencies, not returning overpayments to taxpayers and making unsupported disbursements between her three bank accounts. 

The clerk worked for the town from 2014 to 2021, having lost election in 2021. She also separately served as treasurer for the Essex County Agricultural Society, a non-profit organization that promotes agriculture through the Essex County Fair, from 2013 to 2019. 

Based upon the audit findings and subsequent investigation of the clerk’s activities at both the town and the society, the clerk was arrested in the summer of 2024 for stealing approximately $60,000 from the society and $29,000 from the town. In May 2025, the clerk pleaded guilty to felony grand larceny in the second degree for the funds stolen from the society and felony grand larceny in the third degree as a crime of public corruption for the theft from the town. 

In July 2025, the clerk was sentenced to five years’ probation and ordered to pay full restitution of nearly $90,000 for stealing funds from both the society and town.

                                                                      ###